1 191 
•15 C65 
spy 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



SB 191 
•W5 C65 
Copy l 



[TED states department of agriculture 
BULLETIN No. 943 

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics 
H. C. TAYLOR, Chief 



Washington, D. C. 



April 30, 1921 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT 

ON 481 FARMS IN THE STATES OF NORTH 

AND SOUTH DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, KANSAS, 

NEBRASKA, AND MISSOURI, FOR THE CROP 

YEAR 1919 

By > 
M. R. COOPER and R. S. WASHBURN 

Assistant Farm Economists 



CONTENTS 



Pago 
A Problem Often Misunderstood ... 1 
Application of Cost Data to Farm Organiza- 
tion 3 

Summary of Results 3 

Basic Factors and Cost Estimates . . 4 
Method, Scope, and Purpose of Present 

Study 4 

Geography of Production 6 

Comparative Wheat Yields 11 

Requirements of Production 12 



• Page 

Summary of Costs, by Districts . . . 13 
Range in Cost per Acre, by Counties . 16 

Net Cost per Bushel 21 

Analysis of Items of Cost 25 

Array of Farms According to Cost per 

Bushel, by Counties 47 

Cumulative Per Cent of Acreage Grown at 

Various Costs per Bushel ..... 49 
Cumulative Per Cent of Total Production 51 
Individual Costs per Acre 54 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1921 



WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE I llll 






/ 



LIBRARY OP'CONGRESS 



N^5 



<0* 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 




BULLETIN No. 943 

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management 
and Farm Economics 

H. C. TAYLOR, Chief 




Washington, D. C. 



April 30, 1921 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 

By M. R. Cooper and R. S. Washburn, Assistant Farm Economists. 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

A problem often misunderstood 1 

Application of cost data to farm organization . 3 

Summary of results 3 

Basic factors and cost estimates 4 

Method, scope, and purpose of present study. 4 

Geography of production 6 

Comparative wheat yields 11 

Requirements of production 12 

Summary of costs, by districts 13 



Page. 

Range in cost per acre, by counties 16 

Net cost per bushel 21 

Analysis of items of cost 25 

Array of farms according to cost per bushel, 

by counties 47 

Cumulative per cent of acreage grown at 

various costs per bushel 49 

Cumulative per cent of total production 51 

Individual costs per acre 54 



A PROBLEM OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD. 

"Cost of production" is a term which has been much used in 
recent years, often, it is believed, without a full comprehension of its 
significance. Some who had at first assumed that there was such a 
thing as one definite and specific cost figure for each of the staple 
farm products have become somewhat confused upon learning of 
the wide range of costs on different farms, and may have come even 
to doubt the utility of cost studies. It is rather difficult to arrive 
at a figure which properly represents the cost of producing wheat, 
or any other product, even on a given farm; furthermore, it is no 
simple matter to interpret properly the results. Because a task is 
difficult, however, is no reason for giving it up when the end in 
view is so important as in this case. 

Note. — Acknowledgment is due to Messrs. M. A. Crosby and G. H. Miller, of the 
Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, United States Department of 
Agriculture, for assistance in collecting the data which are presented in this bulletin. 
Acknowledgment is also due Miss Catherine R. Hawley, of the Office of Farm Man- 
agement and Farm Economics, for excellent work in supervising the tabulation of 
the data which are used as a basis for this discussion. Thanks are extended to the 
numerous farmers who so willingly furnished information with reference to the cost 
of wheat production; also to the county agents and business men of the respective 
districts who so cordially assisted the enumerators in their work. 

26218°— 21— Bull. 943 1 



2 BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

When it was shown that cost studies invariably bring out a wide 
range of costs instead of a single definite cost figure, the average 
was suggested as the representative cost figure, and often so used. 
Continued studies of the cost of producing farm products have 
indicated, however, that the average does not serve the purpose. 
It has been found that if prices merely equaled the average cost 
there would result anything but an inspiring standard, since the 
average usually tends to divide the producers into two groups of 
about equal size, one of which is producing at a cost above the aver- 
age and the other at a cost below the average. 

To be of an} 7 great significance, cost figures must be presented in 
terms of the ranges that exist in the final cost per unit of product 
and in the various elements of cost. The variations in the cost 
per unit of product in any representative farming area are so marked 
that they should be considered in any use of cost figures. 

The Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics aims to 
present cost figures so that a complete picture of the range of indi- 
vidual costs can be obtained at a glance. From the presentation of 
the range of costs of farm products, it would appear that usually 
from 40 to 50 per cent of the production is at costs above the average. 
For this reason it is believed that, in order to stimulate adequate 
production through a period of years, the price at which the crop 
is sold will need to be appreciably above the average cost. It 
follows that the cost that will cover the "bulk" of the production 
of a given product is the figure that approximates what the price 
should be to maintain the industry. This consideration has led to 
the development of the " bulk-line" theory, which has recently 
assumed an important place in the discussion of the relation of 
production costs to price. The "bulk-line" theory is a modification 
and an attempt at practical application of the "marginal cost" or 
"greatest cost" theory of the relation of cost and price. In practice, 
the "bulk line" has sometimes been drawn to include 85 per cent 
of the production, but this is merely a tentative and more or less 
arbitrary figure. In reality the position of the "bulk line" varies 
with different commodities and from time to time, according to the 
alertness with which farmers adjust their production to market 
conditions. The "bulk-line" cost corresponds to the long-time 
average price which is essential, one year with another, to stimulate 
the production of that quantity of product which the market de- 
mands. What this "bulk-line" cost will be depends upon a number 
of factors, including the rate the farmer must pay for land, labor, 
and capital, and the standard of living which farmers, as a class, 
insist upon if they are to remain on the farm. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 3 

APPLICATION OF COST DATA TO FARM ORGANIZATION. 

The fanner is primarily interested in the total net profit from his 
farm as a unit. The determination of the best possible combination 
of enterprises that provides the proper balance in the use of land, 
labor, and capital is a constant problem with him. Complete cost 
studies aid in analyzing seasonal demands for labor and capital and 
provide basic data of great value in planning farm reorganization. 

The wide range in the costs computed for the wheat farms covered 
in this study suggests that considerable variation must have existed 
in the profits from producing wheat. It is not an easy matter to 



SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 

(197 spring-wheat records, 284 winter-wheat records.) 

Cost per acre: 

Spring wheat, $12.98 to $47.84; average, S22.40. 

Winter wheat, $10.55 to $50.23; average, $27.80. 
Cost per bushel: 

Spring wheat, $1.15 to $14.38; average, $2.65. 

Winter wheat, $0.96 to $8.24; average, $1.87. 
Yield: 

Spring wheat, 20.8 bushels per acre to less than 
1 bushel; average, 8.4. 

Winter wheat, 30 bushels per acre to 2.2 ; average, 
14.9. 
In the spring-wheat area about 33 per cent of the 
production was on the farms having costs above the. 
average; in the winter-wheat area about 40 per cent 
of the production was on farms having costs above 
the average. 



overcome the handicap that may be imposed by unfavorable weather 
or by certain diseases, or, perchance, by insect enemies. These are 
risks that demand the constant attention of the grower. Partly 
because of these risks, the progressive wheat farmer is intensely inter- 
ested in the development of methods which will reduce his costs 
per unit of product and increase his profits. 

A study of production costs on several farms will provide mam- 
suggestions with respect to practices that are more economical than 
the customary methods on the majority of farms in the community. 
Detailed analysis brings striking illustrations into the foreground. 
When a better plan or a more economical practice is displayed, 
farmers in general will appropriate the idea and will profit thereby. 



4 BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Costs not only differ on different farms during the same crop sea- 
son, but they also exhibit a considerable range on any individual 
farm from year to year. The variations on the same farm from 
year to year may be due in part to weather conditions or other crop 
risks, or they may reflect the management of the operator. Even 
the most successful wheat grower may have an "off year" in wheat 
production, when the enterprise must be counted as a loss. Such a 
man would not suffer such losses annually for several years in suc- 
cession without considering a change to a more profitable enterprise. 
There are men, however, who do continue in the business and who 
do sustain losses from year to year in growing wheat. Others just 
beginning farming may sustain losses in their initial crop seasons. 

Thus in any year a considerable percentage of the producers of a 
given crop have costs which are above the price which is essential 
to stimulate adequate production through a series of years. Obvi- 
ously the growers who habitually sustain losses must improve their 
methods, introduce more profitable enterprises, or take up other 
lines of business in which they may prove more efficient. 

BASIC FACTORS AND COST ESTIMATES. 

The basic acre-cost factors, such as hours of man and horse labor, 
amounts of manure and fertilizer applied, and quantities of seed and 
twine used, constitute much better measures of cost than the rela- 
tively unstable dollar. If these factors are known, labor rates and 
prices of materials can be applied for any given time, with the result 
that a close approximation of the total cost per acre can be obtained, 
which in turn will make possible a close estimate of the bushel cost 
when the yield per acre is known. 

Where a solid foundation of such basic material is accumulated, it 
should provide a basis for the estimating of approximate acre and 
bushel costs for various products at the end of each crop year, so soon 
as the yield is known and before the crop is marketed. Thus, with 
the progress of the work in this field of investigation and as the 
detailed figures for a series of years are tabulated, the basic cost 
factors become increasingly valuable, because they serve as the basis 
of timely estimates which can not be made with any satisfactory 
degree of accuracy without them. 

METHOD, SCOPE, AND PURPOSE OF PRESENT STUDY. 

The purpose of this bulletin is to give the farmers of the western 
and northern plains, and others interested, as nearly as possible a 
complete statement of the facts concerning cost of wheat production 
for the season of the survey. With this in view, the data have been 
tabulated and presented in the following pages to show the 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 5 

average cost and the variation in cost on individual farms and groups 
of farms in each area visited, and to indicate the more important 
reasons for the great variations in cost per acre and per bushel on 
individual farms. 

The cost data were obtained from wheat growers to whom personal 
visits were made. Each record represents the experience of an indi- 
vidual farmer, the object being to learn for each farm visited, the 
detailed facts of production relative to all wheat land operated by 
the farmer during the crop year 1919. 

This study is based on 481 farm records, of which 197 were obtained 
in five representative counties of the principal spring-wheat States, 
and 284 in nine counties in the leading winter-wheat States. Table I 
shows the districts visited and the total harvested acreage and total 
production on the farms visited in each district: 

Table I. — Distribution of cost records, spring and winter wheat, 1919. 



State and county. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County. 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 



Total spring wheat. 



Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County. 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles Co 

Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 



Total winter wheat. 



Designation of area. 



Larimore-Gilby 

New Salem-Hebron. 



Redfield. 



Moorhead 

Wheaton-firaceville. 



Dodge City. 

Larned 

McPherson. 



Marshall . . . 
Carthage . . . 
St. Charles. 



Iloldredge 

Crete-Dorchester. 
Ogallala 



Number 

of 
records. 



197 



2S4 



Acres 
har- 
vested. 



10,060 
5,840 

9,500 

10,376 
7,071 



42, 847 



9,817 
9,092 
4,652 

2,362 
2,949 
3,035 

4,404 
2,008 
4,395 



42,714 



Bushels 

pro- 
duced. 



98,335 
25,835 

93,862 

84,325 
59, 690 



362,047 



130, S90 
126, 838 
59,034 

38, 422 
56, 730 
59, 520 

47, 744 
36,334 
79,612 



635, 124 



According to the Yearbook of the United States Department 
of Agriculture for 1919, farmers in the United States harvested 
49,905,000 acres of winter wheat, yielding 731,636,000 bushels, and 
23,338,000 acres of spring wheat, yielding 209,351,000 bushels. 

In this survey a total area of 43,940 acres seeded to winter wheat, 
yielding 635,124 bushels, and a total area of 44,218 acres seeded to 
spring wheat, with a total production of 362,047 bushels, were used 
as the basis for computing costs. About equal acreages are shown 
for the spring and winter wheat groups, though in 1919 the winter- 
wheat acreage in the United States as a whole ,was a little more than 
twice as large as the spring wheat acreage. 



6 BULLETIN 943, "IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

GEOGRAPHY OF PRODUCTION. 

The geographical distribution of the 1919 wheat acreage of the 
United States is shown by the accompanying map (fig. 1). Figure 2 
shows the counties visited in each of the spring and winter wheat 
States in the course of this study. 

The northern boundary of the Cotton Belt more or less closely 
coincides with the southern boundary of the Winter Wheat Belt. 
Likewise the northern boundary of the Winter Wheat Belt coincides 
with the southern boundary of the Spring Wheat Belt. Table II 
shows the acreage and production of spring and winter wheat in the 
States where records were obtained, as compared with the total pro- 
duction in the United States. Of the spring-wheat area in 1919 
about 66 per cent was in the States of Minnesota, North Dakota, and 
South Dakota. Of the winter-wheat area in 1919, over 39 per cent 
was in the States of Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 

Table II. — Importance of 1919 wheat acreage and production in States where records wt rt 

obtained. 



Region. 


Acreage. 


Per cent 
of total 
acreage 

(U.S.). 


Production. 


Per cent 
of total 
produc- 
tion 
(U. S.) 


SPRING WHEAT. 


7,770,000 
3,6.50,000 
3,950,000 


33. 3 

15.7 
16.9 


Bushels. 

53, 613, 000 
29,200,000 
36,735,000 


25.6 




14.0 




• 17.5 






Total 


15,377,000 


65.9 


119,54s, 000 


57.1 






WINTER WHEAT. 


11,594,000 
4,271,(ino 
3,716,000 


23.2 
8.6 

7.4 


150,722,000 
57,699,000 

54,997,000 


20.6 




7.9 




7.5 






Total 


19,584,000 


39.2 


2(13,418,000 


36.0 







During the last 70 years the center of wheat production in the 
United States has moved constantly from east to west. Seventy 
years ago New York was one of the great wheat-producing States. 
From New York the region of heaviest production has moved west- 
ward, through Ohio, southern Wisconsin, and northern Illinois, 
until now the center of production for winter wheat is in central 
Kansas and for spring wheat in North Dakota. In 1919 Kansas 
produced 16 per cent and North Dakota 5.7 per cent of all wheat 
grown in the United States. 

The agricultural development of these western and northern plains 
has been largely responsible for the wheat production having kept 
pace with our wheat consumption. Wheat is not grown to any ex- 
tent in the South, because of the warm, humid climate, which results 
in injury from fungus diseases, and also because of the competition 
with the cotton crop. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 




8 BULLETIN 943, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

CROPS GROWN IN AREAS SURVEYED. 

Table III shows the percentages of the total crop acreage devoted 
to the various crops grown in the regions of the survey. Of all the 
crops grown, wheat occupies first place. (See fig. 3.) The percent- 
age of the total acreage devoted to wheat ranges from 39 per cent in 



WHEAT 

AREA SURVEYED 




N.DAKOTA 



Grand Forks 



DAKOTA 

SpiNK 



NEBRASKA 



\Keith 



COLO. 



KANSAS 



N.M. 



TEX. 




PMjmee J/^msPherson 



OKLA. 



Fig. 2.— Black areas indicate the counties where wheat records were obtained. 

Saline County, Nebraska, to about 80 per cent in Ford County, 
Kansas. 

The percentage of total acreage devoted to wheat in Missouri and 
Nebraska was considerably lower than in some other districts visited 
because of the competition with corn in these States. In the spring- 
wheat districts, because of the smaller amount of rainfall and the 
shorter growing season, corn does not compete with wheat to so 
great an extent. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



The oat acreage was fairly well distributed in all districts, with a 
slightly larger acreage per farm in the spring- wheat districts. This 
is to be expected, since oats require a cool climate. Barley was 




Fig. 3.— Typicalfann scene in western Nebraska, where wheat is the reading farm crop. 

found in all districts visited, except Missouri, but, like oats, was more 
generally grown in the spring-wheat districts. 

Table III. — Distribution of crop area, 1919 (4S1 farms). 



State and countv. 



Crop 

acres 

per 

farm. 



SPRING WHEAT AREAS. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks Countv. 



573. 4 
Morton County j 409. 2 



South Dakota: 

Spink County . . . 
Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse Countv. 



WINTER WHEAT AREAS. 



Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County. 
Nebraska: 

I'helps County 

Saline County 

Keith Countv 



437.7 



496.0 
374. 5 



398. 7 
384. 2 
204.8 

181.5 
155.4 
130.1 

271.4 
149.9 
420.0 



Per cent of crop area in — 



Wheat. 



49.0 
39.6 



55.1 
45.1 



79 


7 


75. 


5 


69 


6 


47. 


9 


63. 


s 


61 


4 


56.2 


38. 


7 


52. 


1 



3.1 
2.5 



16.9 



5.4 
13.4 



3.8 
8.4 
10.6 

40.5 
16.2 
25.9 

28. 6 
32. s 

23. 1 



12.1 
6.7 



10.4 
16.3 



5.1 
.9 
4.3 

3.7 

14.0 

4.6 

2.4 
11.0 
2.9 



Bar- 
ley. 



7.5 
4.3 



Rye. 



5.8 
6.9 



2.9 
8.3 



5.3 l 1.0 



.7 
1.3 



1.9 
1.2 
.1 2.2 



3.8 .8 
2.0 .1 
2. 6 i 8. 



Hay 


Sum- 






and 


mer 


Sor- 


Flax. 


alfal- 


fal- 


ghum. 


fa. 


low. 






10.3 


4.0 




3.4 


21.4 


5.4 




4.2 


12.2 








8.1 


3.4 




1.3 


11.2 


1.2 




2.4 


2.0 




6.1 




3.5 




4.6 




10.3 




1.6 




5.6 








2.8 








7.0 








5.2 




2.3 




12.4 




.4 




8.4 




1.1 





Mis- 
cella- 
neous 
crops. 



7.7 
7.6 



2.1 



1.4 
5.0 
1.3 

2.3 
3.5 
1.1 

.7 
2.6 
1.8 



26218°— 21- 



10 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



No summer-fallow land was found in the winter-wheat districts, 
and in the spring-wheat areas only a small percentage of the crop 
area was summer-fallowed. 

The area devoted to flax production was also limited. 

The miscellaneous crops consisted principally of potatoes, millet, 
spelt, and clover and timothy seed. 



CLIMATE. 



Although wheat is grown in localities in the United States having 
widely different climates, it is a cool-weather crop, and produces the 
largest yield of best quality where cool, moderately wet weather 
prevails during the growing season and dry, sunny weather during 
the ripening period. Wheat is not generally a safe crop where the 
mean annual precipitation is less than 15 inches. In the districts 
of densest production (North Dakota and Kansas) the annual pre- 
cipitation ranges from 18 to 32 inches. Where the rainfall exceeds 
45 inches a year wheat does not thrive, principally because rust and 
fungus diseases are more prevalent there than in less humid districts. 

The distribution of the rainfall is as important as the total amount. 
For instance, in Ford County, Kans., in 1918, the total rainfall was 
normal, but the average yield of wheat for the county was only 3 
bushels per acre. This low yield was due mainly to the small amount 
of rainfall during the months of April, May, and June; in June it 
was only one-fourth inch; and for the three months but 4.5 inches, 
as compared with a normal rainfall of about 8 inches for these months. 

Table IV shows the average yearly precipitation for all districts 
visited, as compared with the total rainfall for the year 1919: 

Table IV. — Mean annual rainfall for districts visited. 



Region. 



Weather station. 



Annual average. 



SPRING WHEAT. 

North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County. 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County. 

WINTER WHEAT. 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County. . . 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County... 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 



Larimore... 
New Salem 

Melette. . .. 

Moorhead . . 
Wheaton... 

Dodge City 

Lamed 

McPherson 

Marshall. . . 

Joplin 

St. Charles. 

Holdredge. 

Crete 

Lodgepole.. 



From 1910 to 1918.. 
From 1909 to 1918.. 

From 1892 to 1918.. 

From 1881 to 1918.. 
From 1915 to 1918.. 

From 1896 to 1918.. 
From 1860 to 1918.. 
From 1889 to 1918.. 

From 1890 to 1918.. 
From 1878 to 1914 « 
From 1890 to 1918.. 

From 1891 to 1918.. 
From 1880 to 1918.. 
From 1890 to 1918.. 



Inches. 
20.20 
17.87 

20.64 

23.65 
18.47 



20.32 
22.70 
31.16 

38.63 
41.26 
36.68 

24.84 
28.85 
16.62 



Inches. 
25.32 
13.68 



23.75 
21.18 



13.70 
19.88 
31.46 

36.12 

35.11 

25.83 
33.42 
18.95 



a No record taken alter 1914. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 11 

Over a series of years approximately one-half of the annual pre- 
cipitation in all districts occurred during the four months, April, 
May, June, and July. The lowest annual precipitation was re- 
corded in Keith County, Nebr. (16.62 inches), and the highest in 
Jasper County, Mo. (41.26 inches). 

In Ford County, Kans., and Morton County, N. Dak., the rainfall 
in 1919 was considerably below normal. In Ford County the dis- 
tribution during the growing season was sufficient to insure a fairly 
good yield. However, in Morton County the rainfall was not well 
enough distributed to produce an average yield. 

SOILS. 

Wheat was grown in the regions visited on fairly deep limestone 
soils, generally well supplied with humus. The lime content was 
especially high in Ford County, Kans., Keith County, Nebr., and 
Morton County, N. Dak., where the amount of rainfall is limited and 
the soluble material has not been leached out. In general, little 
wheat was grown on sandy soils, since this soil type is not so well 
adapted to wheat growing because of its tendency to blow during 
high winds. 

On these soils no commercial fertilizer was used except in the 
Missouri areas. 

COMPARATIVE WHEAT YIELDS. 

The yield of farm crops in any given region is influenced by a 
number of things, such as soil fertility, weather, insect and fungus 
diseases, crop management, etc. Therefore, the results of any 
attempt to tabulate yields for a single year must be considered as 
suggestive rather than definite and conclusive. Yet when yields 
are tabulated over a series of years an average yield can be arrived at 
which will be of value in measuring the possibilities of the area for a 
given crop grown in that region. 

In Table V the average wheat yields for the State, county, and 
farms visited in 1919 are recorded. In some cases the figures on 
yield were obtained from the Bureau of Crop Estimates, United 
States Department of Agriculture; in others, from State boards of 
agriculture. 

The average yield of spring wheat in the United States in 1919 
was 9 bushels per acre, in contrast with a yield of 8.4 bushels per 
acre for the total spring wheat area surveyed. The average yield 
for all winter wheat in 1919 was 14.7 bushels per acre, while the 
average yield for the farms surveyed in this region was 14.9 bushels 
per acre. 

The abnormally low yield of wheat in Morton County, N. Dak., 
was partially due to an insufficient amount of total rainfall which 
was not well distributed over the growing period* 



12 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



In Grand Forks County, N. Dak., and in Clay and Traverse Coun- 
ties, Minn., a period of moist, hot weather occurred just prior to 
harvest time, resulting in wheat rust, which reduced wheat yields 
appreciably in these counties. 

It will be noted (Table V) that the largest number of farms in the 
spring-wheat districts are included in the group having a yield of 
from 5 to 10 bushels per acre, while the largest number in the winter 
wheat districts come within the group having a yield of from 15 to 
20 bushels. 

The average 1919 yield per acre for the farms included in this study 
was determined by dividing the total production by the total harvested 
acreage. The costs presented in this bulletin are based on the actual 
yields obtained on these farms. 

Table V. — Annual yields, spring and ivinter wheat. 





10-year 
State 
aver- 
age. 


9 or 10 
year 
county 
aver- 
age. 


Aver- 
age for 
farms 
visited, 

1919. 


Range in yield per acre. 


Region . 


Under 
5 bush. 


5 to 10 
bush. 


10 to 15 
bush. 


15 to 20 
bush. 


20 to 25 
bush. 


25 bush, 
and 
over. 


SPRING WHEAT. 

North Dakota 


10.6 






No. of 
farms. 


No. of 

farms. 


No. of 
farms. 


No. of 

farms. 


No. of 
farms. 


No of 
farms. 




12.9 
9.2 


9 8 
4.4 


1 

25 


16 
14 


20 


2 














South Dakota 


11.3 










Spink Countv 


10.8 


9.9 




24 


13 


2 






Minnesota 


14.1 






Clay County 


13.5 
11.8 


S. 1 

8.4 


2 
1 


26 
32 


9 
9 


1 






Traverse County 


















Total spring wheat 








29 
15 


112 
57 


51 
26 


5 
2 






Per cent of total 
























"WINTER WHEAT. 


13. S 


















Ford Countv 


12.6 
12.9 
14.7 


13.3 
13.9 
12.7 


3 
1 


7 
4 
8 


6 
16 

17 


10 
10 
10 


6 
1 










McPherson County 








14.3 








15.7 
15.8 
15.2 


16.3 
19.2 
19.6 




3 


7 


12 
17 
12 


7 
12 
22 








1 


St. Charles County 








2 


2 




16.0 








Pheips County 


14.1 
21.1 
19.5 


10.8 
18.1 
IS. 1 




15 


13 
6 

2 


2 
17 
11 






Saline County 




12 

5 




Keith County 






2 


3 






Total winter wheat 








4 
1 


39 
14 


69 
24 


101 
36 


65 
23 




Percent of total 



















REQUIREMENTS OF PRODUCTION. 

In arriving at the cost of wheat production the following elements 
of cost have been considered : 

Labor, which includes (1) all direct man and horse farm labor, and 
(2) contract labor, including such items as marketing wheat at a fixed 
charge per bushel and various labor operations in growing the wheat 
crop, where done at a contract rate per acre. 

Materials, including seed wheat (with cost of treating seed) ; barn- 
yard manure and straw, fertilizer and twine. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



13 



Thrashing, which includes (1) cash paid per bushel, (2) board for 
the part of thrashing crew furnished by the thrasherman, and (3) any 
thrashing fuel furnished by the farmer. 

Use cost of land, or land rent, which includes (1) interest on wheat 
land investment for owned farms, (2) the market value of the share 
of wheat given at thrashing time to the landlord as rent, and (3) the 
actual cash paid for cash-rented wheat land. 

Other costs, including (1) farm taxes and insurance; (2) special 
crop insurance, (3) use of tractor and other farm machinery; (4) loss 
due to abandoned wheat acreage; and (5) overhead. 

Credits, including (1) straw, (2) pasture, and (3) insurance received 
for damages to the growing wheat crop. 

SUMMARY OF COSTS, BY DISTRICTS. 

In Tables VI and VII is presented a summary of average cost per 
acre and per bushel for the areas surveyed. This enables a com- 
parison of the total costs of production by districts, and the part 
of the total costs that is chargeable to labor, materials, thrashing, use 
of land, and other costs. 



Table VI. — Summary of average cost per acre and per bushel of spring tvheat, 1919 (197 

farms) . 





North Dakota. 


South 
Dakota. 


Minnesota. 


All 
spring 
wheat. 


Per 

cent of 

total 

cost. 


Item. 


Grand 

Forks 

County. 


Morton 

County. 


Spink 
County. 


Clay 
County. 


Trav- 
erse 
County. 




39 

10,060 

98,335 

9.8 


39 

5,840 

25,835 

4.4 


39 

9,500 

93, 862 

9.9 


38 
10,376 
84,325 

8.1 


42 

7,071 

59, 690 

8.4 


197 

42,847 

362, 047 

8.4 
















Labor (land preparation and seeding) 


18.0 




81.24 

2.77 

.10 


$1.69 
3.34 


$1.16 

2.54 

.01 


$1.29 
2.35 

.01 


$i.40 
3.17 


$1.32 

2.76 

.03 












Labor (harvesting, marketing) 


14.4 




1.29 
.88 
.01 


2.20 

1.18 

.06 


2.00 

1.02 

.06 


2.26 

1.36 

.02 


2.72 

1.58 

.03 


2.04 

1.18 

.04 












Material costs 


17.1 




3.39 

.57 

.22 

2.78 

4.22 


2.98 
.02 
.29 
.43 

2.15 


2.78 

.39 

.17 

2.68 

7.58 


3.45 

.50 

.40 

1.18 

6.16 


3.38 

.46 

.20 

1.13 

5.98 


3.21 

.42 

.26 

1.78 

5.44 














7 8 




23 9 


Other costs 


18.8 




.29 
.18 
.07 

1.50 
.97 

1.59 


.21 
.21 
.19 

1.98 
.94 

1.46 


.32 
.25 

.26 
1.36 


.46 

.54 

.67 

1.30 


.42 
.11. 
.21 
1.43 


.35 

.28 
.30 

1.47 
.36 

1.51 




















Overhead 


1.31 


1.54 


1.69 










22.07 
.19 


19.33 
.50 


23.89 
.19 


23.49 
.58 


23.91 
.30 


22.75 
.35 


100 


Credits 








Net cost per acre 


21.88 
2.24 


18.83 
4.26 


23. 70 
2.40 


22.91 
2.82 


23.61 
2.80 


22.40 
2.65 




Net cost per bushel 








Without land rent: 

Net cost per acre 


17.66 
1.81 


16.68 
3.77 


16.12 
1.63 


16.75- 
2.06 


17.63 
2.09 


16.96 
2.01 




Net cost per bushel 









14 



BULLETIN 043, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table VII. — Summary of average cost per acre and per bushel of winter wheat, 1919 (284 

farms) . 





Kansas. 




Missouri. 


Nebraska. 


All 

winter 
wheat. 


Per 
cent 

of 
total 
cost. 


Item. 


Ford 
Coun- 
ty- 


Paw- 
nee 

Coun- 
ty. 


Mc- 
pher- 
son 
Coun- 
ty. 


Saline 
Coun- 
ty. 


Jasper 
Coun- 
ty. 


St. 

Chas. 

Coun- 
ty. 


Phelps 
Coun- 
ty. 


Saline 
Coun- 
ty. 


Keith 
Coun- 
ty. 


Number of records 


32 
9,817 

130, 890 

13.3 


32 
9,092 

126,838 

13.9 


' 35 
4,652 

59,034 

12.7 


29 
2,362 

38,422 

16.3 


30 
2,949 

56, 730 

19.2 


38 
3,035 

59, 520 

19.6 


30 
4,404 

47, 744 

10.8 


35 
2,008 

36,334 

18.1 


23 
4,395 

79,612 

18.1 


284 
42,714 

635, 124 

14.9 




Total production (bush- 
els) 




Average yield per acre 




Labor (land prepara- 
tion and seeding) 


13. S 


Man labor cost per 


$0.93 

2.74 

.02 


$0.75 
1.85 


$1. 62 
3.58 
.02 


$1.50 
3.08 
.11 


$2.21 
4.30 
.02 


$1.82 
3.70 


$1.25 
2.46 


$2.13 

4.29 

.01 


$0.83 
.97 
.18 


$1.23 

2.70 

.03 




Horse labor cost 

Contract labor. : 




Labor (harvesting, 
marketing) 






2J.6 


Man labor cost 

Horse labor cost 

Contract labor 


3. 75 

2.20 

.02 


2.80 
1.38 
.02 


3.89 
1.61 


4.78 
1.83 

.12 


4.68 

2.22 

.20 


4.89 
1.96 


3.61 
1.67 


5.77 
2.53 


4.61 
1.28 
1.32 


3.94 
1.79 
.16 




Material costs 








10.4 


Seed and seed treat- 


1.79 
.31 
.06 


2.19 
.21 
.10 


2.36 
.63 
.39 


2.73 
.66 
.06 


2.52 
.53 
.44 


2.58 
.55 
.40 
.33 
.01 


2.13 
.63 
.16 


2.99 

.87 
.27 


1.72 
.44 

.02 


2.18 
.45 
.17 
.02 
.14 
.01 
2.30 
8.59 




Binder twine 

Manure and straw . . 
Green manure 




Fertilizer 








.01 


2.07 










Grasshopper poison. 


.02 
2.58 
6.14 






.01 
1.18 
6.94 








Thrashing 


2.67 

7.77 


2.83 
8.44 


3.37 
13.92 


1.45 
10.30 


1.86 

11.28 


1.98 
13.25 


1.91 
9.57 


8.0 


Use cost of land 

Other costs 


30.0 
17.2 


Taxes and insurance 
Special crop insur- 
ance 


.13 

1.06 
.12 

1.15 

.24 


.18 

1.23 
.26 

1.32 

.18 


.21 

.27 
.33 

1.98 

.69 


.43 

.07 
.20 

1.51 

.91 

.07 

2.19 


.24 

.10 
.19 

1.77 

.06 

2.48 


.36 

.06 
.47 

2.13 

.07 
2.17 


.18 

.63 

.14 

1.23 
.32 


.6a 

.21 
.37 

1.93 

.15 


.12 

1.15 
1.39 

1.68 


.22 

.74 
.35 

1.51 

.26 
.01 
1.81 




Use cost of tractor. . 

Use cost of other 

farm machinery. . 

Loss on abandoned 




Sack rent 






1.75 


1.44 


2.03 


1.57 


2.50 


1.59 








Total cost per acre. 
Credits 


25.01 
.71 


24.35 
1.29 


30.88 
.68 


37.55 
2.27 


35.78 
1,14 


34.64 
.51 


24.11 
.27 


39.88 
.34 


2S.78 
.26 


28.62 
.82 


100.0 






Net cost per acre 

Net cost per bushel 


24.30 
1.82 


23.06 
1.65 


30.20 
2.38 


35.28 
2.17 


34.64 
1.80 


34.13 
1.74 


23.84 
2.20 


39.54 
2.19 


28.52 
1.57 


27.8) 
1.87 




Without land rent: 
Net cost per acre. .'. . 
Net cost per bushel. 


18.16 
1.36 


15.29 
1.10 


21.76 
1.71 


21.36 
1.31 


24.34 
1.26 


22.85 
1.17 


16.90 
1.56 


26.29 
1.45 


18.95 
1.05 


19.21 
1.29 





The gross costs arc partially offset by credits for pasture and any 
straw utilized on the farm. The difference between the gross cost and 
the sum of these credits is the net cost of producing -wheat. The cost 
per bushel was obtained by dividing the total net cost by the total 
yield. The average acre cost of each item of expense was computed 
on a weighted basis by dividing the total cost of each item by the total 
wheat acreage. This method results in a relatively low regional cost 
per acre for items of expense that did not occur on the entire acreage. 
As an illustration, the cost of binder twine in Morton County, N. Dak., 
where but 1 per cent of the acreage was cut with a binder, amounted 
to but 2 cents per acre when distributed over the total wheat acreage. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 15 

Again, in Keith County, Nebr., loss than 1 per cent of the wheat acre- 
age was manured at a prorated cost of 2 cents per acre. Such 
averages, of course, have no direct significance to the grower, though 
they may have weight hi determining a regional cost. 

An analysis of the total cost for spring and winter wheat under the 
five headings, "labor," "materials," "tin-ashing," "use cost of land," 
and "other costs," shows that labor constitutes about 32 to 35 per 
cent of the total cost of production; thrashing about 8 per cent; 
materials from 10 to 17 per cent; land rent from 24 to 30 per cent; 
and "other costs" from 17 to 19 per cent. 

The two largest items of cost, "labor" and "land rent," constitute 
about 56 and 64 per cent, respectively, of the total costs in the spring 
and winter wheat areas. The variations in labor practices and costs 
are shown in detail elsewhere in this bulletin. 

The average use cost of land in each district represents a combi- 
nation of tenures and is not indicative of the rent charge for any par- 
ticular renting practice. The land rent charge, therefore, is a com- 
posite figure, made up of the interest on land values on owned farms 
and the cash or share rent paid on rented farms. These variations 
in land values and variations in yields and in the acreage of wheat 
produced on owned and rented land are reflected in the differences 
in the average land rent charges for the various districts. Because 
of the lower land values and the lower yield of wheat in the Spring- 
Wheat Belt the charge for the use of land is considerably lower here 
than in the Winter- Wheat Belt. 

Nearly 40 per cent of the spring wheat and 00 per cent of the winter 
wheat acreage in question was grown by renters. To these men the 
charge for the use of land is an important item of cost. To the 
operator who owns his land a charge for the use of land is less vital 
from the standpoint of actual cash outlay. The owner, however, 
has an investment in wheat land, which, if rented out, would return 
to him an income in cash or equivalent thereto in the form of a share 
of the wheat crop. Therefore, in determining the cost of producing 
wheat on owned land, interest on investment in land has been con- 
sidered an item of cost in order that cost of production on owned and 
rented land may be comparable. The importance of the charge for use 
of land may be seen by referring to the last two items in Tables VI and 
VII, where the cost per acre and per bushel without land rent has been 
shown. In the case of spring wheat the charge for use of land 
amounted to 64 cents a bushel and in the case of winter wheat 58 
cents a bushel. 

In the winter wheat districts the three counties in Missouri had 
the most uniform cost per acre. With the exception of Saline 
County, Nebr., the average cost for the Missouri areas was consider- 
ably higher than the cost for the other winter-wheat areas. The 



16 BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

principal reasons for this are found in higher land values and a more 
thorough preparation of the land for wheat in the three Missouri 
districts and in the Saline County, Nebr., area. 

Since yield has a much less important influence on the cost per 
acre than on the cost per bushel, the acre cost should be the unit 
used in comparing the cost of wheat production in the districts vis- 
ited. The cost of twine, shocking, thrashing, and marketing vary 
somewhat with yield; but, unless the yields are abnormal, this varia- 
tion is so slight that the costs per acre are comparable within a region. 
The yield per acre, however, as already pointed out, has a decided 
effect on cost per bushel, as will be seen from an examination of 
Tables VI and VII. The average cost of producing winter wheat 
was $27.80 per acre and $1.87 per bushel, as compared with an aver- 
age cost for spring wheat of $22.40 per acre and $2.65 per bushel. 
It will be seen that the average cost per acre for all spring wheat was 
$5.40 less than for all winter wheat, though the average cost per bushel 
was $0.78 greater. This difference in cost per bushel is due to a lack 
of relation between the cost of producing an acre of wheat and yield 
obtained; the cost per acre of winter wheat being 24 per cent greater 
than for spring wheat, whereas the yield per acre was 77 per cent 
greater. 

RANGE IN COST PER ACRE, RY COUNTIES. 

In Table VIII the farms have been grouped according to cost per 
acre. In the five spring-wheat counties the acre cost per farm 
ranged from $12.98 to $47.84. Only 7 per cent of these farms, how- 
ever, had a cost in excess of $30 per acre, and the number with a cost 
of less than $20 per acre was of small importance in all but the two 
counties visited in North Dakota. In the two North Dakota areas 
over 78 per cent of the farms had a cost of $25 or less per acre. In 
Grand Forks County comparatively low labor and rent costs were 
found on a goodly number of farms. In Morton County the labor 
costs were fairly high, which was partially offset by a low thrashing 
cost and exceptionally low rent costs. 

The wide range in acre costs within each area is explained in the 
following manner: As a rule, those farms showing a cost of less than 
$20 per acre had comparatively low labor costs, combined with a low 
rent charge, the latter being due to a low valuation of land on owned 
farms and low yields on rented farms; and since the value of the 
share of wheat given to the landlord for the use of the land has been 
charged as rent to the operator, the rent charge on rented farms 
varied with the yield obtained. In this connection it should be noted 
that a good many of the farms in each area having a cost of less than 
$20 per acre were share-rented farms. Again, the farms in this cost 
group did not have excessive costs from abandoned wheat acreage. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



17 



The next two and important groups, $20 to $25 and $25 to $30 per 
acre, contained farms on which there was either a gradual or irregu- 
lar increase in all or a part of the various items of cost over those 
farms in the preceding group. * These increases were most pronounced 
in labor and rent costs, although a few farms came within these 
groups because of abandoned acreage costs. 

Table YTII. — Range in cost per acre, by counties, spring and winter wheat, 1919 (481 

farms). 



District. 



SPRING WHEAT. 

North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 

Total, spring wheat 

Per cent of total 

"WINTER WHEAT. 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County 

Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County 

Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

SalineCounty 

Keith Counts 7 

Total, winter wheat 

Per cent of total 



Cost per acr<\ 



Num- 
ber of 
records 



39 



197 
LOO 



284 
100 



Under 

$20 
(num- 
ber of 
farms). 



to $25 
(num- 
ber of 
farms). 



22 



$25 
to $30 
(num- 
ber of 
farms) 



$30 
to $35 
(num- 
ber of 
farms). 



$35 
to $40 
(num- 
ber of 
farms). 



$40 and 
over 
(num- 
ber of 
farms). 



The farms in the three highest cost groups had one or more exces- 
sive items of cost. Thus in the Grand Forks area the farm having 
a cost of $30 to $35 per acre was a rented farm with a yield of 12 
bushels per acre based on the acres harvested, but about one-half 
of the acreage seeded was abandoned before harvest. In the same 
area the farm in the $35 to $40 class abandoned 150 out of 210 acres. 

The two farms having the highest cost in Spink County came in the 
$30 to $35 group. One of these farms had a very high rent cost 
and the other a high labor and rent cost combined with a com- 
paratively high cost for seed wheat. 

The eight farms in Minnesota with costs of $30 to $35 per acre 
had high labor and rent costs, and the one farm in Traverse County 
with a cost of over $40 was a small farm highly capitalized. The 
26218°— 21— 3 



18 BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

labor, rent, equipment, and overhead costs were comparatively high, 
with a resultant cost of $47.84 per acre. 

In the winter-wheat areas the variation in cost per acre on farms 
in the same county was due primarily to the same causes that affected 
costs on the spring-wheat farms. Thus in Ford County three of the 
four farms having a cost of $30 to $40 per acre were share-rented 
farms on which good yields were obtained, making a high-rent charge 
to the operator. The one farm with a cost of $30 to $35 per acre 
in Pawnee County was a share-rented farm also with a high yield. 
Of McPherson County's five farms appearing in the two highest cost 
groups three had abandoned acreage and the other two were share- 
rented farms with good yields. The two farms with lowest acre 
costs in Saline County, Mo., had comparatively low-labor costs and 
exceptionally high credits for straw and pasture. The farms having 
a cost of $40 and over per acre in the three Missouri counties had no 
item of expense for abandoned acreage, but were universally high in 
labor costs, and in some instances had high thrashing and rent costs; 
the latter owing to high land values or very good yields of wheat. 
In the Nebraska areas the variation in cost per acre was attributable 
to the reasons mentioned above, the principal causes of variation 
closely following those mentioned for the Missouri areas. 

In the three Missouri areas the prominence of the farms with 
comparatively high acre costs is due to thorough land preparation, 
good yields, and high land valuations. Likewise on the farms in 
Saline County, Nebr., which are relatively small, much labor is 
devoted to land preparation, good yields were obtained, causing a 
fairly high thrashing charge per acre, and land valuations were 
higher than in any other area visited except one. 

Thus it is evident that the acre cost of growing wheat is in no 
way constant, but may vary as the quantities and values of the 
various items of cost vary. The amount and the cost of labor devoted 
to raising an acre of wheat may be influenced by many things, some 
of which the farmer can not control, and in consequence the acre 
cost may change from year to year. This is borne out by a study of 
individual farm costs in each area. The amount of labor devoted 
to seed-bed preparation was not uniform in any given locality. 
This lack of uniformity was due to different practices followed on 
individual farms and even on different fields on the same farm. 
Soil conditions, weather conditions, available labor, distance from 
market, etc., all have much to do with the hours devoted to raising 
an acre of wheat. 

As an example of variation in practice it was not uncommon to 
find farmers in certain winter-wheat areas who plowed a part of the 
land, listed a part, and disk-drilled a part in cornstalk or grain stubble 
land without further preparation. In some instances a part of the 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



19 



wheat land was in such condition as a result of heavy rains that an 
8-foot binder was able to cut but one-third to one-half of a full swath. 
The influence of such conditions on labor requirements not only in 
cutting but in shocking such wheat is apparent The abandonment 
of a high percentage of the acreage has a decided effect on acre cost. 
Rent or interest on land, the value of which ranged from $30 to over 
$200 per acre in the spring-wheat areas, is also a big item in acre- 
cost variation, just as is high or low yields on share-rented farms. 
Other items of cost were less variable, but each contributed its part 
to the range in acre costs as shown for these farms. 

Could each wheat farmer foresee the cost per acre of production, 
and furthermore forecast with any degree of accuracy the yield for 
any given year, farming as well as cost of production studies would 
be much simplified. But unfortunately, this is not the case, and 
while such information for one year is of considerable value, it is only 
after data of this nature have been obtained for a number of years 
that plans for farm organization can be undertaken with best results. 
These cost figures, therefore, should be treated as preliminary, repre- 
sentative of but one year's work. They should be supplemented by 
similar figures for years to come to make them applicable as fixed 
standards for individual farmers. 

(Further variations in the cost per acre and per bushel on farms 
operated by landowners are shown in Table XXXVII, appendix, 
where an itemized statement is recorded for each farm visited.) 



VARIATION IN NET COST PER ACRE. 

In figures 4 and 5 the spring-wheat and winter-wheat farms have 
been grouped according to cost per acre, without regard to counties. 
In the spring-wheat area 88 of the 197 farms came within the $20 
to $25 class. Next in importance were the farms with costs ranging 
from $25 to $30 per acre, followed closely by the group with cost 
under $20 per acre. Few farms had costs of over $30. 

Table IX. — Variation in net cost per acre, spring and winter wheat, 1919 {481 farms). 



Net cost per acre. 



Num- 
ber of 
farms. 



Cumula- 
tive 
per cent 
of farms. 



Seeded. 



Harvest- 
ed. 



Cumula- 
tive per 

cent har- 
vested. 



Produc- 
tion. 



Cumula- 
tive pro- 
duction. 



Produc- 
tion. 



SPRING WHEAT. 

Under $20 

$20 to $25 

$25 to $30 

$30 to $35 

$35 to $40 

$40 and over 

WINTER WHEAT. 

Under $20 

$20 to $25 

$25 to $30 

$30 to $35 

$35 to $40 

$40andover 



Per cent. 
23.4 
68.1 
93.4 
99.0 
99.5 
100.0 



7.8 
26.1 
46.9 
69.7 
87.0 
100.0 



A cres. 

10,389 

22,224 

10, 066 

1,278 

210 

51 



5,468 
11,773 
10, 823 
8,343 
5,044 
2,489 



Acres. 

10,156 

21,962 

9,440 

1,178 

60 

51 



5,193 
11,485 
10,537 
8,206 
4,924 
2,369 



Acres. 
23.7 
75.0 
97.0 
99.8 
99.9 
100.0 



12.2 
39.1 
63.8 
83.0 
94.5 
100.0 



Bushels. 
62,855 
196, 224 
89, 432 
12,618 
423 
495 



46,437 
141,542 
160,860 
146, 151 
92,508 
47,626 



Bushels. 
62,855 
259, 079 
348,511 
361,129 
361,552 
362, 047 



46,437 
187,979 
348, 839 
494,990 
587,498 
635, 124 



Per cent. 
17.4 
71.6 
96.3 
99.8 
99.9 
100.0 



7.3 
29.6 
54.9 
77.9 
92.5 
100.0 



20 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



In the winter-wheat area the farms having costs from $30 to 
per acre were predominant, though the variation in size of groups was 
much less marked than that shown by the spring-wheat farms. The 




Fig. 4. — Variation in net cost per acre, spring wheat, 1919. 

importance of these various groups is brought out clearly in Table IX. 
where the cumulative per cent of acreage harvested and cumulative 
per cent of production are presented. 




Fig. 5. — Variation in net cost per acre, winter wheat, 1919. 

In the spring-wheat areas 68 per cent of the farms visited produced 
wheat at costs of less than $25 per acre. These f arms had 75 per cent 
of the acreage and 72 per cent of total production. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



21 



In the winter-wheat areas the range in cost per acre was greater than 
in the spring-wheat areas. Nearly 70 per cent of the farmers, rep- 
resenting 83 per cent of the acreage and 78 per cent of total pro- 
duction, had costs of $35 or less per acre 

NET COST PER BUSHEL. 

RELATION OF YIELD TO COST PER BUSHEL. 

As heretofore shown, a wide range in cost per acre existed on the 
farms visited. While, of course, it is advisable to produce a maximum 
yield at a minimum cost per acre, the ultimate result of importance 
is the cost of producing a bushel of wheat. If yield were to increase 
with fixed relation to an increase in cost per acre, a definite basis would 
be established for planning profitable farm organization. However, 
one may handle a crop according to approved methods of production 
only to have the crop destroyed by insects, fungus diseases, exces- 
sive droughts or rains, etc., and while the acre cost of production may 
be reasonable, the cost per bushel may be extremely high. The 
experience of wheat growers has been that if they can withstand the 
losses occasioned by crop failures they may hope to realize a com- 
pensating income during the good years. Were it not for a reali- 
zation of these things an exceedingly bad year might induce many 
farmers to go out of the business. 

In Tables X and XI the spring and winter wheat farms have been 
grouped according to yield. A review of these tables shows the in- 
fluence of yield in determining cost per bushel. In general, as the 
yield per acre increased, the cost per bushel decreased. 

Table X. — Relation of yield to cost per bushel, spring wheat, 1919 (197) farms. 







Cumu- 










Cumu- 






Range of yield. 


Num- 
ber 
of rec- 


lative 

per 
cent of 


Aver- 
age 
■ yield. 


Aver- 
age 
cost per 


Range of yield. 


Num- 
ber 
of rec- 


lative 

per 
cent of 


Aver- 
age 
yield. 


Aver- 
age 
cost per 




ords. 


produc- 


bushel. 




cords. 


produc- 


bushel. 






tion. 










tion. 






Bushels. 






Bushels. 




Buskih. 






Bushels. 




lto 1.9 


3 


0.2 


1.3 


$12.16 


10 to 10.9 


11 


67.0 


10.3 


2.30 


2to 2.9 


5 


.8 


2.8 


5.81 


11 to 11.9 


22 


79.7 


11.5 


2.10 


3 to 3.9 


7 


1.6 


3.3 


5.98 


12 to 12.9 


7 


84.2 


12.0 


1.95 


4 to 4.9 


14 


4.9 


4.5 


4.54 


13 to 13.9 


8 


90.5 


13.2 


1.93 


5 to 5.9 


18 


11.0 


5.4 


3.79 


14 to 14.9 


4 


94.5 


14.6 


1.79 


6 to 6.9 


27 


23.1 


6.5 


3.25 


15 to 15.9 


2 


98.0 


15.4 


1.45 


7 to 7.9 


22 


32.2 


7.6 


2.97 


16 to 16.9 


2 


99.7 


16.7 


1.60 


8 to 8.9 


25 


46.1 


8.5 


2.65 


17 and over 


1 


100.0 


20.8 


1.15 


9 to 9.9 


19 


55.0 


9.5 


2.58 













The column in these tables showing cumulative per cent of pro- 
duction indicates that over one-half of the wheat grown on the 
spring-wheat farms included in this study was produced on farms 
having yields of less than 10 bushels per acre, and that 45 per cent was 
raised on farms having yields of from 10 to 20.8 bushels per acre. In 



22 



BULLKTfN W3, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF ACRICULTURE. 



the winter-wheat areas better yields prevailed than in the spring- 
wheat areas. Here nearly 50 per cent of the wheat was grown on 
farms having yields of from 2.2 to 16.9 bushels and the other 50 per 
cent was grown on farms where yields of from 17 to 30 bushels per 
acre were obtained. When one considers the range in yields obtained 
on these farms, the great variations in costs per bushel are not 
surprising. 

Table XI. — Relation of yield to cost per bushel, winter wheat, 1919 {284 farms). 



Range of yield. 


Num- 
ber 
of rec- 
ords. 


Cumu- 
lative 

per 
cent of 
produc- 
tion. 


Aver- 
age 
yield. 


Aver- 
age 
cost per 
bushel. 


Range of yield. 


Num- 
ber 
of rec- 
cords. 


Cumu- 
lative 
per 
cent of 
produc- 
tion. 


Aver- 
age 
yield. 


Aver- 
age 
cost per 
bushel. 


Bushels. 

2 to 2.9 

3 to 3.9 

4to 4.9 

5 to 5.9 

6 to 6.9 

7to 7.9 

8 to 8.9 

9 to 9.9 

10 to 10.9 

11 to 11.9 

12 to 12.9 

13 to 13.9 

14 to 14.9. : 


2 
1 
1 
3 
3 
7 
14 
12 
14 
12 
12 
13 
18 


0.3 

.4 

.6 

1.1 

1.5 

3.3 

6.5 

9.1 

12.1 

14.5 

22.3 

28.5 

35.4 


Bushels. 
2.5 
3.4 
4.9 
5.6 
6.4 
7.5 
8.2 
9.6 
10.5 
11.3 
12.4 
13.4 
14.5 


$6.55 
4.35 
3.60 
3.37 
3.42 
2.89 
2.47 
2.39 
2.26 
2.17 
1.97 
2.06 
1.97 


Bushels. 

15 to 15.9 

16 to 16.9 

17 to 17.9 

18 to 18.9 

19 to 19.9 

20 to 20.9 

21 to 21.9 

22 to 22.9 

23 to 23.9 

24 to 24.9 

25 to 25.9 

28 to 28.9 


21 

18 

24 

27 

11 

28 

15 

12 

6 

4 

4 

1 

1 


43.3 
49.4 
59.9 
70.0 
73.6 
82.3 
89.6 
94.3 
96.4 
98.2 
99.2 
99.5 
100.0 


Bushels. 
15.4 
16.4 
17.5 
18.5 
19.5 
20.2 
21.4 
22.2 
23.4 
24.2 
25.2 
28.8 
30.0 


1.90 
1.82 
1.61 
1.80 
1.76 
1.55 
1.56 
1.49 
1.65 
1.29 
1.47 
1.49 
1.46 



VARIATION IN NET COST PER BUSHEL. 



On the 197 spring-wheat farms the average cost was $2.65 per 
bushel, and the cost on individual farms ranged from $1.15 to $14.38 
per bushel. However, but one of the 197 farms had a cost as high as 
$14.38, and only 15 farms, representing 2.5 per cent of the wheat pro- 
duced, had costs exceeding $5 per bushel. In figure 6 the 197 
farms have been arranged according to net cost per bushel, that the 
relative importance of each cost group may be shown. 

The variations in net cost per bushel are due, of course, to varia- 
tions in costs expended per acre and in the yields obtained, both of 
which factors have been previously discussed. However, it may be 
of interest to note conditions that prevailed in 1919 on some of the 
farms having extremely low or high costs. A review of the records 
taken indicates that when the farms were classified, as shown in 
figure 6, both those with comparatively low and those with compara- 
tively high acre costs often appeared in the same cost per bushel 
class. Yield is the most variable factor in determining the cost of 
producing a bushel of wheat, and this factor is therefore largely 
responsible for the grouping of the farms. Farms where a part of 
the acreage was not worth cutting usually had a high acreage cost, 
owing to expenses in preparing land and seeding wheat that was not 
cut. Furthermore the yield from the acreage harvested was usually 
low, thus further increasing the bushel cost. Of the farmers having 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



23 



a cost of $5 or over per bushel, about one-half abandoned a part of 
the seeded wheat acreage, and the Weld on this group of farms ranged 
from slightly less than 1 bushel per acre to 7 bushels per acre, based 



NET COST 
PER BUSHEL 
S I to 
1 20 
1.30 
1 40 
I SO 
1 60 
1 70 
ISO 

1 90 

2 OO 
2 IO 
2.20 
2.30 
2 40 
2.50 
2 60 
2.70 

2 80 
2.90 

3 00 
3 10 
3 20 
3 30 
3.40 
3.50 
3 60 
3 70 

3 eo 
3.90 
4.00 

4 IO 
4 20 
4 30 
4 40 
4 SO 
4 60 
4 70 
4 80 

4 90 
5.00 

5 IO 
5.20 
5.30 
5.40 
5. SO 
5 60 

5 70 
5.80 
5.90 

6 OO 
6.10 
6.20 
6.30 
6.40 



8.30 

e 70 

10 20 
10. 40 
12.10 

14.40 



NUMBER OF RECORDS 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 



f 



~~ — " 



,, ____ 



— 



„, -.-. __ 







1. ■ 




__ 



CUMULATIVE 
PER CT Of 
PRODUCTION 



3 2 
6 4 
8 1 
14 9 
20 6 
24 5 
29 8 
34 9 
47 1 
51 5 
54 9 
64.3 
69 3 
72.3 
75.fi 
77 7 
79 1 
60 1 
82 8 
85 1 

87 6 

88 5 

89 2 

90 9 

91 7 

91 7 

92 4 

93 3 

93 8 

94 7 

95 9 

96 4 

96 8 

97 1 
97 5 



98 1 
98 3 



98 7 

99 2 



99 5 
99 6 

99 7 
99 8 
99 9 
100 O 



Fig. 6.— Variation in net cost per bushel, winter wheat, 1919. 

on the acreage harvested. The farms having a low cost per bushel 
were farms on which comparatively good yields were obtained, 
many yielding from 10 to 15 bushels, and in some instances as high 
as 20 bushels per acre. 



24 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



The average cost for the 284 winter wheat farms was $1.87 per 
bushel. The range in cost on individual farms was from $0.96 to 
$8.24 per bushel (see fig. 7). Nearly 75 per cent of the wheat grown 



NET COST 
PER BUSHEL 

s 

* i oo 

1 10 
I 20 
1 SO 
t 40 
1 50 
1 60 
1.70 
1 80 

1 90 

2 OO 
2 lO 
2.20 
2 30 
2.40 
2 SO 
2.60 
2.70 

2 SO 
2.90 

3 OO 
3 lO 
3 20 
3 30 
3 40 
3 50 
3 60 
3 70 
3 BO 
3 90 



5 10 
5 20 



2 4 6 



NUMBER OF RECORDS 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 




CUMULATIVE 
PER CT OF 
PRODUCTION 



5 1 

6 5 
12.0 
18.5 
27 5 
35 2 
45 t 
53 6 
63 9 
73 7 
78 4 
82 2 
85 5 
88.5 

91 8 

92 9 
95.9 

96 4 

97 O 
97 3 

97 7 

98 1 
98 3 
98 5 

98 7 

99 1 
99 2 
99 3 
99 5 



99 8 
99 9 



Fig. 7. — Variation in net cost per bushel, spring wheat, 1919. 

on these farms in 1919 was produced at a cost of $2 and less per bushel 
and was grown on 165 of the 284 farms visited. As in the spring- 
wheat districts, good yields were obtained on the farms having low 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 25 

bushel costs. A number of such farms reported yields as high as 
15 to 25 bushels per acre. The farms on which the cost per bushel 
was exceptionally high reported yields ranging from less than 3 bushels 
to 8 and 10 bushels per acre. A number of the farmers with the 
higher costs abandoned a part of their wheat acreage because it was 
totally destroyed or in such condition that it was not worth the 
expense of harvesting. 

ANALYSIS OF ITEMS OF COST. 

The labor costs and other items of expense entering into the cost 
of wheat production have been expressed in terms of hours of labor 
and quantities of seed, twine, etc., wherever possible. This has been 
done because requirements expressed in these terms are more valuable 
for purposes of comparison than when expressed in the less stable 
terms of dollars and cents. These cost factors have been treated 
under the general headings, " Labor, " "Material" "Thrashing," 
"Use cost of land," and "Other costs." 

LABOR. 

AVERAGE HOURS OF MAN AND HORSE LABOR PER ACRE. 

Table XII shows the average number of hours per acre devoted to 
wheat production in the various regions studied. 

The figures shown are averages for only those farms operated with 
horses, all farms on which the tractor or motor truck was used having 
been omitted in this tabulation. 

The average hours per acre of man and horse labor for each dis- 
trict are representative, with the exception of any variation caused 
by different practices followed in providing labor for thrashing. In 
the spring-wheat areas the farmers furnished the thrashing crews 
in Morton, Clay, and Traverse Counties, and the total man and horse 
hours include all labor for hauling and pitching bundles in these 
counties. But in Grand Forks and Spink Counties the owner of the 
thrashing machine furnished the men and teams for thrashing, and 
this labor, which would amount to about l{ man and 2^ horse hours 
per acre, is not included in the averages shown in Table XII. 

In the Kansas areas and Saline County, Mo., the crew was furnished 
by both farmers and thrashermen. Had the farmer furnished the 
entire crew the average hours of production would have been increased 
by abouL 1 man-hour per acre. 

In all other winter-wheat areas, excepting Saline County, Mo., the 
thrashing crews, and therefore the thrashing labor, are included in 
the averages for these areas. 

In the spring-wheat areas the average man-hours varied from nearly 
six hours per acre in Grand Forks County, N. Dak., to about nine hours 
26218°— 21 4 



26 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



per acre in Morton County, N. Dak. The hours per acre of horse 
labor in these two counties were 19.2 and 25.7, respectively. In the 
winter-wheat areas a greater variation was found, man labor varying 
from 7.3 hours per acre in Pawnee County, Kans., to 17.5 hours in 
Jasper County, Mo., and horse labor from 19.7 to 39.5 hours, respec- 
tively. When the total labor was divided as to land preparation and 
seeding, and harvesting and marketing, it was found that m nearly 
every case the bulk of total horse labor came in the fall and spring 
when the land was prepared and the crop seeded. In the spring- 
wheat areas there was usually little difference in man-hours as thus 
divided. Generally any difference that occurred indicated that 
more man labor was required in land preparation and seeding than 
in harvesting and marketing. In the winter-wheat areas wider 
variations occurred in the two divisions, and usually the man-hours 
for harvesting and marketing were higher than for land preparation 
and seeding. 

Table XII. — Average hours of man and horse labor, by counties, spring and winter 

wheat, 1919 (360 farms). 

« I Farms using tractors or trucks not included.] 



SPRING WHEAT. 



Preparation 

and seeding 

( hours per 

acre). 



Man. Horse. 



North Dakota: 

(irand Forks County. 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 



WINTER WHEA1 

Kansas: 

Ford Count y 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County 

Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County 

Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 



3.6 
5, 1 



4. 2 
4.1 



2.8 
2.6 

4. 5 

5. 1 
S. 1 
8.2 

3.7 
6.7 
2.7 



11.6 
19. 6 



15.1 

17.3 



12.0 
11.7 

IS. s 

is.;, 
26. K 
25.1 

13.0 
24. 7 
9.3 



Harvesting and 

marketing 
, (hours per 
acre). 



Man. Horse. 



2.2 

3. s 



4.0 

4.7 



4. S 
4.7 

4.S 

s, 1 
9.4 

5. 



s. 1 
6.9 



4.6 
6.1 



7.3 

S. 4 



s. s 
S.0 
8.1 

11.1 
12.7 
11.5 

8.6 
12.4 
10.1 



Man. Horse. 



5.8 
9.2 



6.1 



S. 2 
8.8 



7.3 
9.3 

13.2 
17.5 

17.1 

9.2 
14.8 
9.6 



19.2 

25. 7 



22.4 
25.7 



20.8 
19.7 
26.9 

29.6 
39.5 



21.6 
37.1 
19.4 



VARIATION IN LABOR REQUIREMENTS. 



From Tables XIII and XIV it is apparent that there was a wide 
variation among individual farms in the amount of labor devoted to 
growing an acre of wheat. In these tables the farm records included 
in Table XII were grouped according to total man hours per acre. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



27 



In the spring-wheat areas all but eight of the 159 farms were well 
represented in four groups, or in those classes having man labor 
requirements of from 4 to 12 hours per acre. In Grand Forks and 
Spink Counties, nearly all of the farms came within the two groups, 
"4 to 6 " and " 6 to 8 " hours per acre. In Morton County the largest 
group of farms required from 8 to 10 hours of man labor per acre, and 
in both Minnesota areas the majority of all farms showed require- 
ments of from 6 to 10 hours per acre. Of the total wheat acreage 
grown on the spring-wheat farms more than one-third was grown on 
farms having man labor requirements of from 6 to 8 hours; also a 
large acreage was represented by each group of farms commencing 
with 4 to 6 hours per acre, and including the 10 to 12 hour group. 

Table XIII. — Variation in labor requirements per acre, spring wheat, 19 1 9 1 159 farms). 
[Farms using tractors or trucks not included.] 



Range 
of 


North Dakota. 


South 
Dakota. 


Minnesota. 






Average 

hours per 

acre. 


hours 
per 
acre. 


Grand 

Forks 

County. 


Morton 
County. 


Spink 
County. 


Clay 
County. 


Traverse 
County. 


Total. 




Man. Horse. 




Fat ms. 

1 

15 

14 

3 


Acre- 
age. 

410 
3,987 
2,829 

719 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 
1 
34 
54 
39 
21 
4 
2 


Acre- 
age. 
410 
8,330 
10, S89 
7,064 
3,578 
385 
180 


3.6 
5.1 


13 4 


4to6... 


2 
6 
12 
7 
2 
1 


473 

716 

1,581 

1,055 

225 

80 


15 
13 
1 
2 


3,350 

2, 880 

75 

360 


2 
10 
10 

8 


520 
2,494 
2,267 
1,200 








6to8... 
StolO.. 
10 to 12.. 


11 
13 


1,970 

2,422 

aa3 


6. 9 20! 6 

8. 7 25. 5 


12tol4 








2 160 




14tol6.. 








1 


100 


14 6 35 


I6I0IS.. 












18to20.. 
















1 51 


1 


51 


19 1 45 8 




















Total. 


33 


7,945 


30 


4,130 


31 6,665 


31 


6,581 


34 5,566 


159 


30,887 


7.4 


22.1 



Table XIV. — Variation in labor requirement per acre, winter wheat, 1919 < 201 farms). 
[Farms using tractors or trucks not included.] 



Range of man- 
hours per acre. 


Kansas. 


Missouri. 


Ford 
County. 


Pawnee 
County. 


Mcl'herson 
County. 


Saline 
County. 


Jasper 
County. 


St. Charles 
County. 




Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


^4crr- 
age. 


Farms. 


.( (IV- 

agt. 


Farms. 


A cre- 
age. 


4to6 


3 
12 

8 
2 


880 
3,940 
2,362 

450 


3 
13 
4 
3 


605 
3,750 
1,295 

615 
















6to8 


7 
8 
6 
1 


614 
965 
741 

80 


i 1 70 
5 520 










StolO 










10tol2 


1 
2 
4 
4 
2 


40 
245 

295 
175 

170 










12tol4 






3 
5 
7 
4 
2 
1 
3 


°47 


14tol6 








6 
5 
6 
3 


711 
511 

457 
240 


514 


16tol8 












481 


18to20 












229 


20 to 22 












88 


22to24... 
















55 


24 to 26.... 












1 65 






164 


26to28 












2 


56 
























Total 


25 7, 632 


23 


6,265 


22 


2,400 


20 


1,580 


22 


1,975 


25 


1,778 



28 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table XIY. — Variation in labor requirements per acre, spring wheat, 1919 {201 farms)- 

Contmued. 



Range of man-hours 


Nebraska. 


Total. 


Average hours 
per acre. 




Phelps County. 


Saline County. 


Keith County. 


Man. 


Horse. 




Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 


Farms. 


Acre- 
age. 






4 to 6 


1 
4 
16 
5 
2 


120 
523 
2,361 
495 
245 










7 

41 

41 

22 

17 

24 

22 

14 

6 

1 

4 

2 


1,605 

9,402 

7,503 

2,867 

1.280 

2,007 

1,360 

976 

402 

55 

229 

56 


5.4 
6.9 
9.0 
10.8 
12.8 
15.2 
16.7 
18.7 
20.5 
23.8 
24.6 
27.4 


15.9 


fi to8 






i 


505 


19.1 


8 to 10 






22.9 


10tol2 


3 
8 
8 
6 
2 
1 


171 
403 
447 
193 
120 
74 


2 
1 
1 


355 
60 
40 


26.2 


12tol4 


30.7 


14 to lfi 


36.1 


16 to 18 






37.0 


I8to20 . 










41.5 


20 to 22 










44.9 


22 to 24 










47.0 


21 to 26 














44.2 


26 to 28 














61.6 














Total 


28 


3,744 


28 


1,408 


8 


960 


201 


27,742 


10.0 


24.8 







In the winter-wheat areas each labor group from 6 to 20 hours per 
acre was well represented by farms in one or more of the counties 
visited. None of these farms reported less than 4 man-hours per 
acre, and the average for the 4 to 6 hour group was 5.4 hours. Like- 
wise, few of the farms reported more than 20 hours per acre, although 
two farms with small acreages were in the 26 to 28 hour class. In 
the winter-wheat area the majority of farmers in the three Kansas 
counties and Phelps County, Nebr., reported comparatively low 
hours of labor per acre. The farmers in Saline County, Nebr., and 
Jasper and St. Charles Counties, Mo., reported comparatively high 
hours of labor, while those in Saline County, Mo., were fairly well 
distributed in all groups from 8 to 20 hours per acre. In Keith 
County, Nebr., but eight of the total farms were included in this tab- 
ulation because of the extensive use of tractors and employment of 
contract labor. 

SUMMARY OF LABOR PRACTICES. 

As an indication of variations in amount of labor expended per 
acre, a summary of labor practices is given in Tables XV to XIX 
inclusive. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 29 

Table XV. — Summary of labor practices in the Dakota*, spring uheal, 1919. 





Grand Forks Count v. 
N. Dak. 


Morton County, N 


.Dak. 


Spink County, S. 


Dak. 


Practice. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age. 1 


Average 

hours per 

acre. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age. 1 


A verage 

hours per 

acre. 


Reo- Acre- 
ords. age. 1 


A verage 

hours per 

acre. 




Per 

cert. 
72 
100 

s 
67 


Per 

cent. 

8 

91 

5 

26 


Man. 
9.4 
1.7 
1.4 
1.0 


Horse. 

21.8 

9.0 

4.2 


Per 

cent. 

67 

85 

13 

77 

5 

90 

38 

10 

33 

90 

95 

100 


Per 

cent. 
8 
68 
11 
31 
11 
82 
36 
10 
34 
90 
94 
100 


Man. 
10.9 
2.4 
1.1 
1.3 
.4 
.8 

.0 

.6 
.1 
.3 
.1 
.6 


Horse. 

20.1 
12.0 

5. 5 

3.2 

2.0 

1.9 

.2 

2.4 


Per 
cert. 
72 
98 
1.-. 
7s 

•J 
98 
42 

5 

IS 
68 
7S 
100 

5 
82 

8 
2.'. 

2 
85 
22 
85 


Per 
cent. 

7 
60 
It 
25 

.3 
94 
37 
18 
25 
68 
71 
97 

3 

68 
10 
20 

2 
79 
27 
81 


[Man. 

11.2 

2.0 

1.0 

.8 

. 5 

.3 

.2 

.4 

.1 

.2 

.1 

.6 

1.2 

.7 

1.1 

2.7 

2.4 

.9 

.1 

1.0 


Horse. 

27.5 


Plow 


10.8 






Disk 2 


3.8 








69 
21 
21 
38 
77 
82 
100 


65 
16 
8 
37 
74 
71 
100 


.4 
.2 
.4 
.1 
.3 
.1 
.5 


2.0 

1.0 

1.9 

.2 

2.0 


1.7 


Harro \v aft er drill ( spike ) . 
Roll 


1.2 
1.9 




.2 












2.6 






Cut 


100 


100 


.6 


2.5 


is 


10 


.7 


2.7 


2.8 
















90 


90 


"2.' 5' 


4.3 


4.0 












1.3 


Shock 


100 
33 
100 


100 
36 
100 


.7 
.1 
(<) 




18 
8 
5 
13 
97 
87 

90 

13 


9 
3 
3 

8 
« 97 
"92 

93 

7 


.7 
.2 
1.3 
1.6 
.4 
.2 

.7 

.2 


2.6 
1.9 

.4 

1.5 

.5 










1.9 


Stack . . . 














25 

SO 

Sll 

56 


19 
50 

50 

50 


.3 

.6 

.8 
.7 






67 
69 
67 


632 
35 
65 


. 5 

.7 
.5 


.9 
2.1 
1.4 


1.1 


Haul to market (from 


1.6 


Haul to market (from 


1.5 







1 Thrashing and hauling percentages arc based upon bushels. 

a Disking was done 1.3 times in Grand Forks County, 1.2 times in Morton County, and 1.1 times in 
Spink County. 

3 Harrowing was done 1.5 times in Grand Forks County, 1.8 times in Morton County, and 1.1 times in 
Spink County. 

4 Contract. 

a Some grain was thrashed into bins. 



Table XVI. — Summary of labor practices 


in Minnesota, spring wheat, 1919. 




Clay County. 


Traverse County. 


Practice. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age. 1 


A verage hours 
per acre. 


Rec- 
ords. 


A ore- 
are. 1 


Average hours 
per acre. 




Per cent. 
77 
85 
26 
69 
10 
85 
10 

5 
10 
51 

5 

8 
44 
79 
44 
100 
97 

5 
100 
46 
100 


Percent. 

9 

48 
41 
26 

5 
59 
13 

3 

28 
38 

3 

4 

50 

82 

36 

100 

88 

12 

100 

38 

100 


Man. 

10.2 

2.2 

1.1 

1.1 

.6 

.4 

.2 

.8 

.5 

.2 

.4 

.s 

.1 

.2 
.1 
.6 
.7 

1.7 
.9 
.2 

1.4 


Horse. 
31.4 
11.2 

4.5 

l.s 

3.2 


Percent. 

76 
93 
12 
43 

5 
95 

5 


Percent. 
11 
82 
11 
14 

3 
93 

7 


Man . 

11.0 

2.2 

1.7 

1.5 

.6 

.5 

.2 


Horse. 
29.8 


Plow 


11.3 






Disk « 


6.0 








2.1 






















1.0 


52 


57 


.3 | 1.2 






Roll 


3.1 
.2 

2.4 

2.9 

2.5 


2 
17 
64 
79 

100 

95 

7 

100 
52 
86 
14 
14 
90 
90 
24 


1 

16 
61 

75 

100 

92 

8 

100 

47 

'.il 

10 

9 

86 
86 
14 


.5 

.1 
.3 
.1 
.6 
.7 

1.1 
.9 
.2 

1.3 

2.8 
.9 
.4 

1.0 
.7 


2.0 




.2 












2.4 


Cut 


2.9 






Shock 










2.6 




3.8 
















74 
74 


63 
63 
37 


.3 
.8 
.4 


.6 
1.7 
.8 


. 7 


Haul to market (from granary) 

Haul to market (from machine) 


2.0 
1.3 



1 Thrashing and hauling percentage are based upon bushels. 

J Disking was done 1.2 times in Clav County and 1.3 times in Traverse County. 

8 Harrowing was done 1.6 times in Clav County and 1.7 times in Traverse County. 



30 BULLETIN 943, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Table XVII. — Summary of labor practices in Kansas, winter reheat, 1919. 




i Thrashing and hauling percentages are based upon bushels. 

2 Disking was done 1.5 times in Ford County, 1.8 times in Pawnee County, and 1.2 times in McPherson 
County. 

3 Harrowing was done 1.1 times in Ford County, 1.2 times in Pawnee County, and 2.1 times in McPherson 
County. 

< Contract. 

" Some grain thrashed into the bins. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 31 

Table XVIII. — Summary of labor practices in Missouri, winter wheat, 1919. 







Saline County. 




Jasper 


County. 


St 


Charl 


es ( onnty. 


Practice. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age.' 


Average 

hours per 

acre. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age.' 


Average 

hours per 

acre. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age.! 


Average 

iours per 

acre. 


Haul and fill gullies 


Per 
cent. 


Per 
cent. 


Man. 


Horse. 


Per 
cent. 


Per 
cent. 


Man 


Horse. 


Per 

cent. 

32 


Per 
cent. 


Man. 
1.4 


Horse. 
2.3 


Cut stalks 


3 
24 
14 
79 
10 

3 
69 

7 
10 

7 
93 


5 
2 

8 
55 
13 

3 
43 

4 

8 

7 

86 


0.7 
8.9 
1.8 
3.2 
1.2 

. 7 
1.3 
1.2 

.9 
1.3 
1.1 


1.4 
12.0 

7.0 
11.8 

2.1 
5.3 

1.6 
7.2 
4.2 














60 
3 
93 
17 


4 

2 

*4 

12. 


14.1 
1.2 
3.6 
2.3 


23.0 
4.8 
12.5 


68 


7 


11.0 


19 2 


Disk before plow 




Plow 


82 
32 

84 

32 

8 

5 


54 
23 

21 
16 
6 
5 


4.8 
1.7 

1.7 
1.9 
.8 
.8 


15 7 


Plow (tractor ) 




Plow land with cultiva- 
tor 


3.5 


Disk 2 


77 
3 
13 


51 
5 
10 


1.4 

.7 
.8 


5.4 
3.2 


6.8 


Disk (tractor) 




Floating 


3.7 






Harrow-spike (horse) 3 .. 


97 
3 
3 

13 


99 
3 
3 

16 


1.4 
.3 

.4 
.8 


5. 6 

"T<v 

2.6 


97 
5 


M 
5 


1.6 
.3 


.'). X 


Harrow after drill 












Roll 


14 


9 


.8 


2.0 


37 
13 


27 


.9 
.3 


2.8 


Ditch 


.6 




3 
41 
55 
72 

100 

97 

7 

100 
76 
10 
90 
10 
14 

14 

86 


( 4 ) 

39 

55 

76 

100 

91 

9 

100 

77 

7 

94 

6 

14 

14 

86 


1.0 

.1 

.2 

.2 

.9 

1.3 

1.7 

2.3 

■i'.i 

4.9 

2.6 

.4 

1.1 

1.1 


2.0 
.2 

2.9 
5.2 


97 
37 
100 
3 
100 
100 


99 
34 
100 
6 
100 
100 


.3 
.2 
.2 
.2 
.9 
.9 


.5 

.4 

2.8 
3.8 






24 
66 
32 

100 
92 
11 

100 
87 


19 

62 
24 
100 

87 

13 

100 

87 


.1 

.2 

.2 

1.0 

1.0 

1.2 

2.1 

.4 


.2 






Treat seed 




Cut 


2.9 
3.8 


Cut (tractor) 




Shock 


"'i'o' 

6.0 

.4 

2.2 

2.3 


100 
83 
23 
80 
23 

100 

100 

37 


100 

87 
20 
81 
19 
79 

79 

21 


2.0 

.2 

3.4 

3.3 

1.7 
.9 

2.2 

1.6 


3.9 
4.0 








Stack 






100 


100 


3.4 


4.1 








1.2 
4.3 
3.1 


66 
71 
76 


31 
38 
62 


.9 
1.9 

2.0 


.6 


Haul to market (from 


3.6 


Haul to market (from 


2.9 







1 Thrashing and hauling percentages are based upon bushels. 

2 Disking was done 1.3 times in Saline County, 1.2 times in Jasper County, and 1.4 times in St. Charles 
County. 

3 Harrowing was done 1.6 times in Saline County, 2.4 times in Jasper County, and 1.8 times in St. Charles 
County. 

1 Less than one-half of 1 per cent. 



32 BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Table XIX. — Summary of labor -practices in Nebraska, tvinter tvheat, 1919. 





l'helps County. 


Saline County. 


Keith County. 


Practice. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age, i 


Average 

hours per 

acre. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age, i 


Average 

hours per 

acre. 


Rec- 
ords. 


Acre- 
age, i 


Average 

hours per 

acre. 


Harrow stalks 


Per 
cent. 
53 
20 
70 
100 
7 

3 


Per 

cent. 

18 
5 
7 

61 
7 

1 


Man. 
0.4 

.6 
9.1 
2.3 

.9 

1.9 


Horse 

1.8 

1.7 

21.3 

9.5 

7.6 


Per 
cent. 


Per 
cent. 


Man. 


Horse 


Per 
cent. 


Per 

cent. 


Man. 


Horse. 


Cut stalks 
















•" 




80 
89 
17 


17 
74 
24 


8.5 
2.9 
1.3 


23.8 
11.2 


22 
26 

48 

4 
39 

4 
48 
30 
26 

4 


1 

6 
57 

1 
12 

1 
23 

40 

14 

1 


12.7 

3.6 

.9 

1.4 
.4 

.4 
2.3 
.8 
.5 
.4 


25.4 
13.7 


Plow 




Plow land with culti- 
vator 


1 4 


Break corn stalks 










1 6 


Break corn stalks (trac- 
tor) 




















Disk 2 


33 


16 


.8 


3.6 


69 


56 


1.4 


5.8 


9.7 


Disk (tractor) 


Harrow (spike) 3 

Harrow (spike ) (tractor) . 


100 


65 


.6 


2.5 


100 


99 


.7 


2.8 


1.9 


Harrow after drill 










3 

6 


1 

3 


.4 
.8 


1.6 
3.4 




Roll 


3 

30 
17 
30 
10 
97 
3 
93 
7 
3 


.2 

24 
21 
23 

8 
97 

3 
90 

9 

1 


.4 

.1 

. 1 
.1 
.1 
1.1 
.6 
.7 
1.2 
3.5 


1.6 

.1 
.2 

3.0 










Apply grass-hopper poi- 












9 

54 

3 

100 


6 

54 

3 

100 


.2 
.2 
.1 
.9 


.4 
3.6 


13 
52 
35 
70 
30 
39 
30 
35 
4 
65 
26 
22 
52 
52 
78 

78 

35 


22 
60 
31 
46 
54 
32 
45 
15 

8 
71 
36 

9 

70 
30 
69 

69 

31 


.1 
.1 
.1 
1.2 

.7 

.8 

.9 

2.3 

2.2 

1.3 

.3 

2.8 

2.6 

1.3 

.8 

2.2 

.6 


2 










Drill seed 


3 3 


Drill seed (tractor) 




Cut 


3.5 
5.0 


100 
3 


93 

7 


.9 
1.2 


3.9 


3 3 






Head and stack 


3.9 


Head and stack (tractor) 










1.6 


Shock 


99 
37 
37 
63 
40 
83 

83 

60 


99 
38 
28 
73 
27 
59 

59 

41 


1.0 
.2 
2.6 
1.9 
.9 
.3 

1.0 

.8 


2.9 

2.5 

.5 
2.0 
1.6 


100 
46 

6 
94 

6 
89 

89 

46 


96 
42 

2 
98 

2 
66 

66 

34 


1.6 
.2 
4.2 
3.5 
1.4 
.8 

1.5 

1.4 


4.8 
5.0 

1.2 

3.0 

2.5 








Stack 


2 7 


Shock thrash 


3.3 








1.3 


Haul to market (from 
granary) 

Haul to market (from 
machine) 


4.6 
.8 







1 Thrashing and hauling percentage are based upon bushels. 

2 Disking was done 1.0 time in Phelps County, 1.4 times in Saline County, and 2.1 times in Keith County. 
8 Harrowing was done 1.9 times in Phelps County, 1.9 times in Saline County, and 1.3 times in Keith 

County. 

Plowing is an operation that requires a large amount of power 
and labor as compared with other farm operations. In the spring- 
wheat area 86 per cent of the total wheat acreage was plowed, and 
of this 20 per cent was plowed with tractor power. The remaining 
14 per cent of the wheat acreage was corn stubble and potato land 
which was not plowed but usually disk-harrowed instead. Clay 
County, Minn., was foremost in the use of the tractor for plowing, 
41 per cent of the acreage being tractor-plowed in this area. In the 
various winter-wheat areas visited a wide variation existed in the 
percentage of total wheat acreage plowed. In Pawnee and Ford 
Counties, Kans., but 21 and 23 per cent, respectively, of the wheat 
land was plowed, while in the other districts from 60 to 98 per cent 
was plowed. The tractor was extensively used in St. Charles County, 
Mo., where 24 per cent of the land was plowed by tractor power. 
In Ford, Pawnee, and McPherson Counties the lister was substituted 



Bui. 943, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 



Plate I. 







V 



3S*. 



y? 



3 



Bui. 943, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 



Plate II. 




COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



33 



for the plow on a part of the wheat acreage. (See fig. 8.) In Ford 
County 31 per cent of the wheat area was listed; in Pawnee County 
50 per cent; and in McPherson County 19 per cent of the land was 
broken in this manner. After listing a "ridge buster," or "sled," 
as it is commonly called, was used for the purpose of tearing down 
the ridges or rows left by the lister. In some of the areas a part of 
the corn stubble land was prepared for seeding by running over it 
with a two-horse disk cultivator. In St. Charles County, Mo., 
21 per cent of the wheat acreage was gone over with the disk culti- 
vator. The disk harrow was extensively used in some areas for all 
preparation prior to drilling. On some farms a part of the grain 
stubble and corn land received no preparation, but was seeded with 




Fig. 8.— Preparation of land for wheat with the one-row lister. 

a disk drill, which served the purposes of preparing the land and 
seeding in one operation. (See fig. 9.) 

The spike-tooth harrow was used extensively in both spring and 
winter wheat areas. In the spring-wheat areas 76 per cent of the 
entire acreage was spike-harrowed before seeding, and 30 per cent 
of this acreage was harrowed again after seeding. The spike-tooth 
harrow was also commonly used in the winter-wheat areas, but none 
of this work was reported after seeding. 

In the spring-wheat districts 83 per cent of the acreage was cut 
with a binder and 17 per cent was headed. (See PL I.) Of the 
total acreage harvested, 6 per cent was cut with tractor power. All 
work with the header was reported from Morton County, N. Dak., 
and Spink County, S. Dak. In these two areas 88 and 20 per cent, 
respectively, of the total acreage was headed. In the winter-wheat 



34 BULLETIN 943, IT. -S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

districts 66 per cent of the total wheat acreage was harvested with 
the binder and 34 per cent was headed. Tractor power was used 
in harvesting grain in all areas excepting Jasper County, Mo. Of 
the winter-wheat acreage 13 per cent was cut with tractor power. 
Heading was found to be most common in Ford and Pawnee Counties, 
Kans. About 64 per cent of the Ford County acreage and 78 per 
cent of the Pawnee County acreage was harvested with the header 
(see PI. II). 

In both spring and winter wheat regions most of the bundle grain 
was shock thrashed. The headed grain was stacked before thrash- 
ing. The grain was either hauled direct from the thrashing machine 
to local elevators and railroad cars or stored on the farm. In some 
localities srain elevators were soon filled, railroad cars were not 



Fig. 9. — Disking stubble land preparatory to drilling wheat without further preparation. 

available at thrashing time, and adequate storage facilities were not 
available on the farm, so that a part of the wheat was often dumped 
in piles on the ground until marketing and storage facilities became 
available. 

In every case all labor and expenses incident to storing and hauling 
grain to market have been included in the cost of production. 

LABOR RATES. 

Man-labor rate. — The man-labor rates, as shown in Table XX, 
are based on prevailing month and day wages paid for farm labor 
at the time the work was done, including board, when furnished. 
The labor of the farmer and any members of his family was charged 
at the same rate. The labor prior to harvesting was mainly per- 
formed by the farmer, with the aid of month hands. During the 
harvest period, however, because of the scarcity of harvest hands 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



35 



and the transient character of labor employed, practically all labor 
was hired on a day basis at a much higher wage. For this reason 
different rates have been used for seed-bed preparation and seeding 
and for harvesting and marketing. The wage paid was mainly 
governed by the competition for farm labor at the time the work 
was done; it will be noted that there is considerable variation in 
the rates used in the several districts visited. 

Horse-labor rate. — The horse-labor rates, as shown in Table XX, are 
based partially on the prevailing charge for team work in the regions 
visited, and partially on the cost of horse labor as obtained from 
detailed cost records which were available for some of the States in 
which this investigation was made. It will be noted that the horse- 
labor rate in Ford County, Kans., was higher than in other districts 
visited; tins was due to partial crop failures in 1918 and 1919, which 
resulted in a relatively high cost of grain and roughage. 

Table XX. — yfan and horse labor rates per hour, spring and winter wheat, 1919 {481 

farms). 



State and county. 



Seed-bed preparation 
and seeding. 



Harvesting and 
marketing. 



Man rate. Horse rate. 



Man rate. Horse rate. 



SPRING-WHEAT AREAS. 

North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 

WINTER-WHEAT AREAS 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County 

Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County 

Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 



$0.35 
.35 



.35 
.35 



.35 
.30 
.35 

.30 
.30 
.25 

.35 
.35 
.35 



mi 60 
.60 



.60 

.75 

.60 
.50 
.55 

.65 
.70 
.80 



$0.20 
.20 



.25 
.18 
.20 

• IS 

• is 
.18 

.20 
.20 
.20 



AVERAGE LABOR COST PER ACRE. 



The labor cost, as shown in Table XXI, includes all man-and- 
horse labor expended by the farmer and any contract labor hired. 
All work hi which the farmer's men and horses had no part has 
been recorded as contract labor. This includes a small amount of 
plowing for which the farmer paid a stipulated sum per acre for 
man and horses or tractor and plows; a small amount of cleaning 
seed wheat; a nominal amount of cutting wheat with the gram 
binder; and some marketing grain, which was usually hauled with 
a truck at a fixed charge per bushel per mile hauled. The relatively 



36 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



high charge for contract labor in Keith County, Nebr., was largely 
due to the great amount of grain hauled to market by contract 
labor, this being 66 per cent of all that was produced. 

In some districts considerable work was done with tractors. 
Unless contract work, the man hours for operating the tractor were 
included under labor costs; but obviously no cost for horse labor 
would occur. The maintenance and upkeep cost of the tractor have 
been charged under machinery costs and not as hours of tractor 
labor. 

The great variations in average labor costs, by counties, as shown 
in Table XXI, are due to the variation in man and horse labor rates 
used in calculating labor costs, and to the variations in amounts of 
labor devoted to raising an acre of wheat. As previously shown, 
considerable variation existed in the average labor rates determined 
for various counties. However, it does not necessarily follow that 
those counties having the higher labor rates had the higher total 
labor costs per acre. 

Table XXI. — Average cost per acre of labor, by counties, spring and winter wheat, 1910 

( '+S1 farms) . 



Region. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks Counts- 
Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 

All spring wheat . . 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County . . 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County . . 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 

All winter wheat . . 



Direct 
man-and- 

horse 
labor cost 



$6.18 
8.41 



7.26 
8.87 



9.62 
6.78 
10.70 

11.19 
13.41 
12.37 

8.99 
14.72 
7.69 



Contract 
labor cost. 



.01 
1.50 



Total 
cost. 



S6.29 

8.47 



6.79 



7.29 
8.90 



9.66 
6.80 
10.72 

11.42 
13.63 
12.37 

8.99 

14.73 
9.19 



MATERIALS. 

SEED. 



The most common variety of seed wheat for the spring-wheat 
districts was the Marquis, and for the winter-wheat districts the 
Turkey Red. An average of approximately 3.5 per cent of the 
winter-wheat acreage was reseeded, while no reseeding was required 
for spring wheat. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



37 



The rate of application is the average for one seeding only, but the 
cost per acre includes the value of the seed used on the reseeded 
acreage. For this reason, and also because the acre cost for seed 
is a weighted average, the average amount applied per acre multi- 
plied by the average price per bushel will not equal the cost per 
acre. 

The value of seed wheat per bushel is an average. Some men bought 
high-grade recleaned seed and some used their own supply for 
planting. The figures given include the value of any materials used 
for seed treatment. All farm-grown seed was charged at its farm 
sale value at planting time. 

The average rate of seeding and the average price per bushel were 
somewhat less for the winter wheat than for the spring wheat, with 
a correspondingly lower cost per acre for winter wheat. (See Table 
XXI.) 

BINDER TWINE. 

Because of the light straw, the average binder-twine requirements 
per acre were appreciably less in the spring- wheat than in the winter- 
wheat districts. 

In three spring-wheat and in four whiter-wheat districts the entire 
acreage was cut with a binder. Principally because of the short 
straw hi Morton County, N. Dak., 90 per cent of the acreage 
was cut with a header. The average price paid for twine varied 
from 22 cents per pound in Clay County, Minn., to 29 cents in 
Grand Forks County, N. Dak., and the average for all winter wheat 
was 1 cent per pound higher than for all spring wheat. (See Table 
XXIII.) 

Table XXII. — Seed requirements per acre, spring and winter wheat, 1919 (481 farms). 



State and county. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks Comity. 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 



All spring wheat. 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County. 
Missouri : 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County. 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 



Per cent 
of acreage 
re-seeded. 



All winter wheat. 



4.4 
9.8 
1.1 



.2 

1. 1 



Rate of 
applica- 
tion. 



Bushel*. 
1.39 
1.23 



1.36 
1.41 



.77 
.95 
1.06 

1.30 
1.23 
1.14 

1.04 
1.44 
.92 



Price per 
bushel. 



$2.44 
2.41 



2.44 
2.41 



2.40 



2.23 
2.12 
1.98 

2.10 
2.05 
2.21 

2.06 
2.09 
2.05 



Average 

cost per 

acre. 



$3.39 
2.98 



2.78 



3.45 
3.38 



3.21 



1.79 
2.19 
2.36 

2.73 
2.52 
2.58 

2.13 

2.99 
1.72 



2.18 



38 BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Table XXIII. — Binder twine requirements, spring and winter wheat, 1919 (481 farms). 



State and county. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 

All spring wheat . . 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County.. 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper Countv 

St. Charles Comity.. 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 

All winter wheat.. 



Per cent 
of 

acreage 
cut with 

binder. 



Amount 

used per 

acre. 



100 

10 



100 
100 



36 
22 

98 

100 
100 
100 

99 

100 
77 



Pounds. 
1.91 
1.32 

1.98 

2.21 
. 2.00 



3.49 
3.23 
2.80 

2.85 
2.32 
2.26 

2.68 
3.69 
2.31 



Cost per 
pound. 



$0.29 
.25 



.25 



Cost per 
acre. 



.50 



.51 



MANURE AND STRAW. 

When manure is applied to a particular crop, other crops following 
in the rotation get part of the henefit. This cost then should he 
distributed among the different crops grown. When applied directly 
to wheat, 50 per cent of the estimated value was charged; when 
applied to the crop immediately preceding, 30 per cent was charged; 
and when two other crops preceded, 20 per cent was charged to the 
wheat. 

The largest number of farmers reporting the use of manure (80 
per cent) was for Saline County, Nebr., while the smallest number 
was for Keith County, Nebr. In Ford County, Kans., and Keith 
County, Nebr., only 1 per cent of the total wheat acreage was 
manured. Farmers in these counties regard manure and straw of 
more value for top dressing to conserve moisture and prevent " blow- 
ing" of the land than as a fertilizer. In these two counties not 
enough moisture is available to make manure valuable as a fertilizer. 

For the spring-wheat districts 8 per cent of the total wheat acreage 
received an application of manure and straw, while for the winter 
wheat only 5 per cent of the total acreage was covered. (See Table 
XXIV.) 

GREEN MANURE. 

In St. Charles County, Mo., it is a common practice to plow under 
a certain number of acres of new clover seeding each year. Corn 
is usually grown on this land for one or two years, followed by wheat 
for one or two years more. It will be readily seen that this practice 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



39 



results in material benefit to the crops which follow. From each 
farmer an estimate was obtained relative to the amount of clover 
seed used and the time required to sow this seed on the average 
amount of new seeding plowed under each year; also the crops 
following on this land were noted. With these data available a 
charge for the value of the clover seed used and the time required 
to sow it was computed, which amounted to $2.80 per acre. This 
cost was prorated to the crops receiving benefit. In the case of 
wheat this charge amounted to $0.33 per acre. 

Table XXIV.- — Straw and manure applied per acre, sprirtg and winter wheat, 1919 

(481 farms). 



State and county. 



Per cent 
of farmers 



Per cent 
of total 



reporting. "££ 



covered. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County 

Morton County . 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 

All spring wheat. . 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County. . 
Missouri: 

Saline Comity 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County.. 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 

All winter wheat.. 



72 



Rate of 
applica- 
tion per 
acre. 



Tom. 
10. 28 
6.84 

9.91 

13.67 
11.41 



10. 53 



8.90 
9.52 
6.40 

6.50 
9.43 
9.24 

8.23 
T.st 
4.95 



7.9s 



Cost per 

acre 
actually 
covered. 



$5.09 
5.66 



6.65 



10.84 
6.44 



10.77 
5.41 
5.38 

5.44 
7.96 
6.94 

2.57 
2.45 
3.96 



COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER. 

Commercial fertilizer was not used in any of the areas visited 
except Missouri, and in this State to no appreciable extent except 
in Jasper County. In this county 97 per cent of the men interviewed 
used commercial fertilizer on their entire wheat acreage, and 3 per 
cent used no fertilizer on this crop. The quantity applied averaged 
100 pounds per acre and the average cost was $42 per ton. 

In St. Charles and Saline Counties commercial fertilizer on wheat 
was not reported except on one farm in each county, where a very 
small acreage was fertilized, more as an experiment than as a regular 
practice. 

GRASSHOPPER CONTROL. 

In Ford County, Kans., much wheat was destroyed by grasshop- 
pers. To control these pests a mixture in the proportion of about 
20 pounds of bran, 1 pound of arsenic or Paris green, ^ gallon of 



40 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



molasses, and 2 oranges or lemons was used. Some of the poison 
was furnished gratis by the county, so only such poison as was pur- 
chased by the farmer is given on the records. Twelve men in Ford 
County, Kans., and 13 in Phelps County, Nebr., reported the use of 
grasshopper poison; on these farms this charge was of little impor- 
tance, and, prorated over the entire acreage surveyed, amounted to 
but 2 cents per acre in Ford County and 1 cent in Phelps County. 

Table XXV.- — Thrashing practices and costs, spring and winter wheat, 1919 (481 farms). 



State and county. 



Prevailing thrashing practices. 



Thrashing 
'done from— 



SPRING WHEAT. 

North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County. 
Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 



WINTER WHEAT. 



Kansas: 

Ford County 



Shock. 
Stack. 



Part of crew ' furnished by — 



Thrasherman. 



Shock. 



Shock. 
Shock. 



/Stack. 

\Shock. 

/Stack. 

Shock. 

McPherson County {shock 

Missouri: 



Pawnee County < 



/Shock. 
\Shock. 

Shock. 

Shock. 



Saline County 

.Tasper County 

St. Charles County 

Nebraska: 

Phelps County {f£g; 

Saline County Shock. 

K -th County fc 



All. 



All 

Field pitchers . 

All 

Field pitchers. 
All 

Field pitchers. 



All. 



Farmer. 



Ml. 
All. 



Bundle haulers. 



Bundle haulers. 
Bundle haulers. 
All 



All. 
All. 

All. 
All. 
All.. 
All. 
All. 



Per cent 
of pro- 
duction. 



mo 

1(H) 



57 
43 
75 
25 
25 
75 

63 
37 

100 

100 



100 

92 



Average 
rate per 
bushel. 



cost per 
acre for 

the 
region. 



$2.78 
.43 



1.18 
1.13 



2.58 
2.67 
2.83 

3.37 

1.45 
1.86 

1.18 
1.98 
1.91 



i In every case the thrasherman furnished the crew for operating the separator and engine and the farmer 
furnished the men and horses for taking care of the thrashed grain. 

THRASHING PRACTICES AND COSTS. 

The main thing which determined the rate per bushel paid for 
thrashing was the proportion in which the thrashing crew was 
furnished by the farmer and the thrasherman. (See Table XXV.) 
In some regions the wheat yields varied so greatly that thrashing 
was paid for on an hour basis rather than a bushel basis, and of 
course farms with low yields had a comparatively high thrashing 
rate per bushel. 

In three of the spring-wheat districts the farmers usually furnished 
all of the thrashing crew, and the average thrashing rate varied from 
10 cents per bushel in Morton County, N. Dak., to 13 cents in both 
of the other two counties. In Grand Forks County, N. Dak., and 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 41 

Spink County, S. Dak., the thrasherman usually furnished the thrash- 
ing crew, and the average rate for thrashing was 27 cents per bushel 
in both counties. 

In the Kansas areas the farmers furnished the bundle haulers 
and teams and the thrasherman furnished field pitchers, where 
shock thrashing was done; where the grain was thrashed from the 
stack, the grain pitchers were furnished by the thrasherman. In 
any case, the crew furnished by the thrasherman did not vary to 
any marked extent, and the rate per bushel was fairly uniform, 
being slightly higher for stack thrashing. 

In Saline Count}^, Mo., 63 per cent of the production was thrashed 
with the farmer's crew and 37 per cent with the thrasherman's crew. 
The rates were 16 cents and 29 cents a bushel. In the other winter- 
wheat areas the thrashing crews were furnished by the farmers in 
nearly every case and the rates averaged from 8 cents to 11 cents a 
bushel. 

The average cost per acre varied in each region according to yield 
and rate per bushel. The average acre cost for all winter wheat 
was 52 cents greater than the average for all spring wheat, but the 
average bushel cost was 4 cents less for winter wheat. 

USE-COST OF LAND OR LAND RENT. 

An estimate of the value of the land on which wheat was grown 
was obtained from each farmer visited. The current interest rate 
on first mortgages was also determined for each district. The result 
obtained by multiplying the investment in wheat land by the 
interest rate was used as the charge for use of land on owned farms. 
If the land was rented on a cash basis the actual cash rent paid per 
acre was used. If the land was share-rented the value of any items 
furnished by the landlord, such as seed, twine, thrashing, crop 
insurance, etc., was charged as a cost to the operator; these items 
were then deducted from the value at thrashing time of the share 
of wheat given to the landlord, the difference appearing as the 
operator's cost for the use of land. The one-half share rent system 
predominated in the Spring-Wheat Belt, and the one-third share 
rent system was most common in the Winter- Wheat Belt. Approxi- 
mately 30 per cent of the spring-wheat acreage was rented on a 
one-half share basis and 62 per cent of the wheat land was owned 
by the operator. About 47 per cent of the winter-wheat acreage 
was one-third share-rented and 42 per cent of the wheat land was 
owned by the operator. 

On owned farms the market value of the wheat land influenced 
the land-rent charge. On share-rented land the yield per acre, 
the share given as rent, and the part of the expenses paid by the 
landlord are the dominating factors. 



42 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE. 



In the spring-wheat areas the interest on investment exceeded 
the value of share-rent paid, while in the winter-wheat districts the 
reverse was true. 

Table XXVI. — Use-cost of land per acre, spring and winter wheat, 1919 (481 farms). 





Owned land. 


Rented land. 


State and county. 


Value 
per 
acre. 


In- 
terest 
on in- 
vest- 
ment. 


One- 
half 
share. 


One- 
third 
share. 


Two- 
fifths 
share. 


One- 
fourth 
share. 


Cash. 


North Dakota: 


$80 

36 

134 

137 

108 


$4. 79 
2.16 

8.06 

8.20 
6.50 


$3.43 
2.65 

7.50 

3.80 
4.24 


$4.56 
2.87 

3.30 

3.31 
5.55 






$4.92 






$1.57 
3.35 


1.25 


South Dakota: 




Minnesota: 


3.53 








3.00 












100 


6.00 


4.90 


3.58 




2.02 


3.52 






Kansas: 


55 
87 
134 

241 
135 
173 

123 
213 
92 


3.28 
5.23 
8.06 

14.44 
8.09 
10. 38 

7.37 
12. 80 
5.53 


9.96 
9.49 

13.60 


9.12 
9.09 
8.34 

13.49 
11.98 
13.77 

6.70 
12.27 
11.67 


$11.26 
12.27 

18.08 


3. 87 






6.00 




7.05 


Missouri: 


7.82 








20.26 




9.90 


Nebraska: 






15.06 






















122 


7.33 


ll(.'.H) 


9.50 


14.13 


3.87 


8.33 







Because of the lower land values and lower yield of wheat in the 
Spring- Wheat Belt, the charge for the use of land is considerably 
lower there than in the Winter- Wheat Belt. (See Table XXVI.) 



OTHER COSTS. 



TAXES AND INSURANCE. 



An estimate was obtained from each man interviewed concerning 
his real estate, live stock, and equipment investment. On owned 
land the per cent that the investment in wheat land is of this total 
investment represents the proportion of the total farm taxes and 
insurance that has been charged to the wheat land. On rented 
farms, land taxes and building insurance were paid by the landlord. 
Any other taxes and insurance were paid by the renter and have 
been charged against live stock and equipment, wheat receiving its 
proportionate share through the equipment charge. 

The average tax and insurance charge on owned land varied from' 
25 cents per acre in Morton County, N. Dak., to 95 cents in Saline 
County, Nebr. 

The special crop insurance includes fire insurance on stacked and 
stored grain and hail insurance on the growing crop. In Morton 



COST OK PRODUCING WHEAT. 



43 



and Grand Forks Counties there is a State hail insurance tax of 
3 cents on each tillable acre owned. Furthermore, there is an 
additional tax on all acreage insured, the amount of the assessment 
to be adjusted at the end of the year in the same manner as mutual 
fire insurance companies. 

Table XXVII. — Tare.* and insurance, spring and winter wheat, 1919 {481 farms). 



State and county. 



Taxes and insur- 
ance on owned 
land. 



Per cent 

of farmers 

owning 

land. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 

All spring wheat . . 

Kansas'. 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County.. 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County . . 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 

All winter wheat.. 



112 



Cost per 
acre. 



Per cent 
of farmers 
reporting . 



Special crop insur- 
ance. 



100 
100 



29 



60 



Average 
cost per 
acre in- 
sured. 



$0.18 
.21 



.81 
.43 



.39 



1.21 
1.32 
.42 

.29 
.15 
.19 

.74 
. 75 
1.43 

1.00 



The largest acre charge for special crop insurance was made in 
Ford and Pawnee Counties, Kans., and in Keith Comity, Nebr. In 
these comities a relatively large hail insurance was carried on the 
growing crop. (See Table XXVII.) 



USE-COST OF TRACTOR. 

The annual use-cost of a tractor includes repairs, fuel, oil, interest, 
taxes and insurance, and depreciation. This yearly cost divided 
by the total number of days the tractor was used during the year 
gave the average daily cost of ruiming the tractor. The daily cost 
multiplied by the number of days the tractor was used on wheat 
production gave the total tractor use-cost chargeable to wheat. 
All man labor costs involved in ruiming the tractor have been included 
under man-labor requirements and do not appear as a tractor charge. 
Table XXVIII shows the principal work on wheat performed by the 
tractor and the normal man-labor requirements and costs per acre 
for these operations. The use of the tractor was more common in 



44 



BULLETIN 043, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



the winter wheat than in the spring wheat areas. The highest cost 
per acre for tractor use occurred in Keith County, Nebr., where 
over 50 per cent of the men interviewed used the tractor. In this 
area 30 per cent of the farmers used the tractor for harvesting wheat 
with the binder and 4 per cent used the tractor for heading wheat. 
(See fig. 11.) 

USE-COST OF OTHER FARM MACHINERY. 

The items making up the total charge for use of "other farm 
machinery" include taxes and insurance, interest on investment, 
depreciation, and the annual maintenance repairs for this machinery. 
The total annual farm charge for the use of machinery has been 
divided between the crop and live-stock enterprises on the farm in 
proportion to the number of horse hours of work required in their 
production. In a few instances farm machinery was hired for use 
in producing the wheat crop and when this was the case the actual 
cash paid out was considered. 

Table XXVIII. — Use cost of tractor and other farm machinery spring and winter wheat, 

1919 (481 farms). 





Plowing (trac- 
tor work). 


Disking (trac- 
tor work). 


Harrowing 
(tractor work). 


Cutting ( 1 rac- 
tor work). 


An- 
nual 
use- 


State and county. 


««* 

c.S 

Ph 


CD 
ft 
CD 

rr *- 

u ° 

O 

w 


CD 

ft 

CD 
u. 

o 

O 
O 


CD 
CD-W 

U (-. 
fe ft 
P-, 


CD 
ft 
CD 

C 

w . 


u 

CD 
ft 

CD 
t~ 

CD 

■4J C3 

O 
O 


CD 
CD-u 

Sift 

Ph 


CD 
ft 
CD 

a * 

o 

W 


CD 

ft 

CD 

H 

o 

+j 03 

o 

o 


CD 
M 

c.S 

CD-W 
CD fc- 

fe p. 

Ph 


u 

CD 
ft 

oj 

§3 

o 

w 


u 
CD 
ft 

CD 
M 

o 

O 


cost ol 
other 
larm 
ma- 
chin- 
ery. 


SPRING WHEAT. 

North Dakota: 


7.7 
12. s 

15.0 

25.6 
H.9 

9.0 

12.5 
20.0 

10.0 
Hi. 7 
31.6 

6.7 
17.1 

47.8 


1.1 

1.1 

1.0 

l.i 

1.2 

.9 
1.1 
1.1 

1.2 
2.0 
1.6 

. 7 
1.3 
.9 


$1.36 
1.30 

1.34 

1.37 
1.31 

1.36 
1.59 
1.28 

1.30 
1.46 
1.50 

.97 
1.43 
1.34 




















$1.50 




5.1 

2.5 

10.3 
4.8 

3.1 
3.1 


0.7 

.6 
.6 

.3 

.8 


SO. 45 

.50 

.52 
.53 

.65 
.65 














1.98 


South Dakota: 


20.5 

4.8 


0.3 
.2 


SO. 41 
.26 


7.5 

5.1 
7.1 

9.4 
15.6 
17.1 


0.4 

.2 
.5 

. 5 
.6 

7 


$0.47 

.50 
.43 

.49 
.50 
.56 

.41 


1.36 


Minnesota: 


1.30 


Traverse Countv 

WINTER WHEAT. 

Kansas: 


1.43 
1.15 


Pawnee Countv 


6.2 


.2 


.21 


1.32 
1.91 


Missouri: 


6.9 
3.3 
7.9 


1.2 

.7 

.8 


.60 
.60 
.73 








6. 9 . 7 


1.51 




3.3 
5.3 


.3 
.3 


.25 
.30 


1.77 


St. Charles County 

Nebraska: 


10.5 .6 

6. 7 1 . 4 

2. 9 . 6 

30.4 | .3 


.45 

.48 
.50 
.48 


2.13 
1.23 
















L.93 




30.4 


.8 


.48 


4.3 


.4 


.35 


1.68 











LOSS ON ABANDONED WHEAT ACREAGE. 

On some farms visited a part of the acreage seeded to wheat was 
not harvested because the crop was destrayed or in such condition 
that it was not worth cutting. All costs for labor, seed, manure, 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



45 



use of land, unless recropped, taxes and insurance, etc., expended 
on this acreage make up the charge "Loss on abandoned wheat 
acreage." When pastured, credit has been given for the value of 
the pasture. The total cost of all abandoned acreage in a region, 
divided by the acreage harvested, is the average abandoned acreage 
cost per harvested acre. (See Table XXIX.) 

In Scuth Dakota, Minnesota, St. Charles County, Mo., and Keith 
County, Nebr., no abandoned acreage was reported, while in the 
other areas from 0.5 to 8.2 per cent of the wheat acreage was not 
harvested. 

SACK RENT. 

During thrashing in Saline and St. Charles counties, Mo., a part 
of the wheat was sacked and stored on the farm until thrashing 
was over, or hauled direct to local elevators. In many instances 
the farmers did not own sufficient sacks and rented additional ones. 
The rent for the use of these amounted to about 4 cents per sack, 
and the acre charge for sack rent averaged about 7 cents an acre 
for each county. 



Table XXIX. 



-Loss due to abandoned wheat acreage, spring and winter wheat — 1919 
(481 farms). 



State and countv. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County. 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 



All spring wheat.. 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County. . . . 

McPherson County. 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County. 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 



All winter wheat . 



Per cent 
of farms 
reporting 
aband- 
oned 
acreage. 



Acres 
seeded. 



10,959 
6,312 

9,500 

10,376 
7,071 



Acres 
har- 
vested . 



Per cent 
of total 
acreage 
aband- 
oned. 



10,060 
5,840 

9,500 

10,376 
7,071 



42,847 



10, 164 
9,282 
4,990 

2,523 
2,960 
3,035 

4,573 
2,018 
4,395 



9,817 
9,092 
4,652 

2,362 
2,949 
3,035 

4,404 
2,008 
4,395 



43,940 | 42,714 



8.20 

7.48 



3.10 



3.41 
2.05 
6.77 

6.38 
.37 



3.70 
.50 



2.79 



Average 
cost per 

acre 
aband- 
oned. 



$10. 87 
11.64 



6.83 
8.53 
9.52 

13.26 
16.43 



8.46 
29.73 



OVERHEAD. 



In addition to items of expense such as labor, seed, twine, thrash- 
ing, etc., which are directly chargeable to wheat, there are certain 
items of general farm expense that are not only an essential part of 
the wheat account, but also a part of the cost of every other crop and 



46 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE. 



each kind of live stock produced. This list contains such items as 
interest and taxes on barn lots, fence rows, roads, etc., building and 
fence repairs and maintenance, arid miscellaneous cash expenses. 
It is generally considered that these items of farm expense can be 
handled best by allowing this miscellaneous cost to represent a 
certain per cent of the combined material and labor costs of each 
enterprise. Detailed cost-accounting records as kept on representa- 
tive wheat farms in several of the areas visited show that this charge 
amounts to approximately 12 per cent of the value of labor, materials, 
and thrashing. Since the type of farming in the districts studied is 
so similar, this rate has been used for all farms. 

CREDITS. 

The item« which have been considered as a credit to the wheat crop 
are straw, pasture, and special insurance received for damage to the 
crop through fire or hail. The straw was considered of very little 
money value and often only that portion needed for bedding was 
saved ; the remainder was left to rot or was burned in stacks in the 
field. 

In the winter-wheat areas some farmers pastured the young wheat 
during the fall and spring months. This was especially true in 
Kansas and Missouri. In Saline County, Mo., the high credit foi 
pasture was largely due to a considerable area being so badly lodged 
that it was not cut, but was pastured with hogs. 

In only a few instances was insurance reported as having been 
received for losses owing to fire or hail. (See Table XXX.) 

Table XXX. — Credit per acre, spring and winter wheat — 1919 (481 farms). 



State and county. 



Straw. 



Pasture. 



Special 
crop in- 
surance 
received. 



Total. 



North Dakota: 

Grand Forks County 

Morton County 

South Dakota: 

Spink County 

Minnesota: 

Clay County 

Traverse County 

All spring wheat . . 

Kansas: 

Ford County 

Pawnee County 

McPherson County. . 
Missouri: 

Saline County 

Jasper County 

St. Charles County.. 
Nebraska: 

Phelps County 

Saline County 

Keith County 

All winter wheat- . 



$0. 19 






$0.19 


.44 




$0.06 


.50 


.19 




.19 


.58 






.58 


.30 






.30 










.34 




.01 


.35 









.30 



$0. 38 
.98 
.26 

1.79 
.41 
.02 



. 06 



.71 
1.29 
.68 

2.27 
1.14 
.51 

.27 
.34 
.26 



.82 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



47 



ARRAY OF FARMS ACCORDING TO COST PER BUSHEL, BY COUNTIES. 

In some counties the variation in cost per bushel was much greater 
than in others. This is brought out in Table XXXI for spring-wheat 
farms and in Table XXXII for winter-wheat farms. 

Of the 29 spring-wheat farms having a cost of .$2 or less, nearly 83 
per cent were located in Grand Forks County, X. Dak., and Spink 
County, S. Dak. 

Table XXXI. — Array of farms according to cost per bushel, by counties, spring whea's, 

1919 {197 farms). 



Cost group. 


North Dakota. 


South 
Dakota. 


Minnesota. 


Total. 


Cumu- 
lative 
per cent 
of all 
farms. 


Grand 

Forks 

County. 


Morton 
County. 


Spink 
County. 


Clay 

County. 


Traverse 

County. 


Per bushel. 
81.10 
1.20 
1.30 
1.40 
1.50 
1.60 
1.70 
1.80 
1.90 
2.00 
2.10 
2.20 
2.30 
2.40 
2.50 
2.60 
2.70 
2.80 
2.90 
3.00 
3.10 
3.20 
3.30 
3.40 
3.50 
3.60 
3.70 
3.80 
3.90 
4.00 
4.10 
4.20 
4.30 
4.40 
4.50 
4.60 
4.70 
4.80 
4.90 
5.00 
5.30 
5.60 
5.70 
6.00 
6.10 
6.40 
8.30 
8.70 
10.20 
10.40 
12.10 
14.40 

Total.... 


Farms. 


Farms. 


Farms. 
1 


Farms. 


Forms, 


Farms. 

1 


0.5 

.5 

1.0 
1.0 
1.5 
3.0 
4.5 
6. 5 
10.6 
14.7 
18.8 
23.9 
29.5 
34.6 
38.2 
44.8 
50.9 
55.0 
58.1 
61.7 
63.2 
64.7 
67.8 
70.3 
73.4 
74.4 
75.9 
77.9 
80. 5 
80.5 
81.5 
83.5 
84.5 
86.0 
87. 5 
89.0 
90.5 
90.5 
91.5 
92.5 
93.5 
94.5 
95.0 
96.0 
96.5 
97.0 
97.5 
98.0 
98.5 
99.0 
99.5 
100.0 










1 










1 










1 
1 
2 

4 

3 

3 

" 5 

4 
1 
1 
4 
1 










1 
3 
3 
4 
8 
8 
8 
10 
11 
10 
7 
a 13 
12 
8 
6 
7 
3 
3 
6 
5 
6 
2 
3 
4 
5 


1 


1 

1 
3 
2 
3 
1 
2 
2 
a 3 
2 
3 
3 
1 
1 
2 
1 


















1 

3 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
7 
"1 
1 


1 

1 
1 
2 

3 



3 
3 

1 

3 

2 
2 
3 

1 


1 




1 








1 


1 

1 


2 








1 
1 


3 
1 
1 
1 


1 
1 




2 
3 


2 

1 








1 


2 
3 




1 
3 






i 


1 










l 


1 
1 
1 
3 
1 




2 
4 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 




2 
a 1 . 


1 
















2 




1 


2 
3 




















1 






1 


2 
2 

! 

2 


1 




1 


2 

2 
1 
2 






























1 








1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
































































39 


39 


39 


38 | 

1 


42 ; 


197 







o Average cost group. 



48 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table XXXII. —Array of farms according to cost per bushel, by counties, winter wheat 

1919 {284 farms). 



1 

Cost 
group. 


Kansas. 


Missouri. 


Nebraska. 


Total. 


Cumu- 
lative 
per c?nt 
of all 

farms. 


Ford 

County. 


Pawnee 
County. 


Mc- 
Pherson 
County. 


Saline 
County. 


Jasper 
County. 


St. 
Charles 
County. 


Phelps 
County. 


Saline Keith 
County. County. 


Perbushel. 
$1.00 
1.10 
1.20 
1.30 
1.40 
1.50 
1.60 
1.70 
1.80 
1.90 
2.00 
2.10 
2.20 
2.30 
2.40 
2.50 
2.60 
2.70 
2.80 
2.90 
3.00 
3.10 
3.20 
3.30 
3.40 
3.50 
3.60 
3.70 
3.80 
3.90 
4.00 
4.10 
4.20 
4.30 
5.10 
5.20 
8.20 

Total. 


Farms. 
1 
o 
1 
2 
1 
1 
4 
4 
a 1 

2 
1 
1 
1 

2 
2 


Farms. 


Farms. 


Farms. 


Farms- 



Farms. 


Farms. 


Farms- 


Farms. 
1 


Farws. 
2 
3 
5 
8 
10 
20 
18 
23 
21 
a 30 
25 
22 
15 
10 
12 
12 
5 
11 
5 
3 
2 
4 
2 
2 
1 
2 
3 
1 
1 
1 


0.7 
1.8 
3.6 

6. -1 
9.9 
16.9 
23. 2 
31 3 
38. 7 

49. 3 
58.1 
65.8 
71.1 
74.6 
78.8 
83.0 
84.8 
88.7 
90.5 
91.6 
92.3 
93.7 
94.4 
95.1 
95.4 
96.1 
97.2 
97.5 
97.8 
98.1 
98-1 

98. 4 
98. 4 
98.8 
99.2 
99.6 

100.0 


1 
1 

2 
4 
2 
«4 
4 
5 
3 

1 
2 
1 














1 




1 

1 

1 

■I 
a 6 
4 
3 
5 
4 
1 






1 
3 
2 
3 
a 2 
3 
2 
2 
3 










1 
5 
2 

"3 . 
G 
6 

1 
3 




1 




2 


1 

2 
3 

3 
3 

(a) 
1 
4 
4 
1 
1 
3 
1 


1 
1 
1 
2 
. 4 
8 
M 
2 
3 
1 
3 
1 
1 
1 


1 
1 
5 
1 
3 
3 
2 
o2 
5 
1 
3 


1 
2 
6 
1 
1 
«1 
3 




1 








2 


1 


3 
1 
1 
1 
1 


















1 

2 
1 
1 


i 












1 


1 




1 


.. 




1 














::::::::.::::::: 


1 
1 
1 








1 












1 






1 






1 










1 
1 














































1 










1 
















1 
1 














1 
1 
1 
1 



















1 










1 
























32 


32 


35 


29 


30 


38 


30 


3.5 


23 


284 







a Average cost group. 

Of the 15 farms having costs in excess of $5 per bushel, all but one 
were in Morton County, N. Dak. This means that nearly 36 per 
cent of the farmers visited in Morton County produced wheat at a 
cost above that of all the farmers but one visited in the other four 
counties. Going still further, it was found that less than 8 per cent 
of the Morton County farmers produced wheat at a cost of $2.70 and 
less per bushel, while approximately 82 per cent of the farmers 
visited in Grand Forks County, 69 per cent in Spink County, and 
47 per cent in Clay and Traverse Counties had costs of $2.70 and less 
per bushel. 

In the winter-wheat districts, 14 of the 24 farms with costs of $3 
and over appeared in Mcpherson County, Kans., and Saline County, 
Mo. Considering the winter-wheat areas as a whole, 58 per cent of 
the winter-wheat farmers produced wheat at a cost of $2 and less. 
Yet this percentage was much less in some counties and much greater 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 49 

in others. The approximate per cent of farmers in each county who 
grew their wheat at a cost of $2 and less is as follows: Ford County, 
Kans., 59; Pawnee County, Kans., 81 ; McPherson County, Kans., 23; 
Saline County, Mo., 45; Jasper County, Mo., 87; St. Charles County, 
Mo., 84; Phelps County, Nebr., 30; Saline County, Nebr., 29; and 
Keith County, Nebr., 96. As a class the winter-wheat farmers 
visited in 1919 had a better wheat year than did the spring-wheat 
farmers. In fact, about 80 per cent of the winter-wheat farmers had 
costs ranging from SI. 30 to $2.50 per bushel, whereas but 38 per cent 
of the spring-wheat farmers had costs within this range. 

CUMULATIVE PER CENT OF ACREAGE GROWN AT VARIOUS COSTS 

PER BUSHEL. 

In Tables XXXIII and XXXIV the farms are grouped according 
to costs per bushel so as to show the per cent of the total wheat 
acreage that was grown at various costs, by counties. In the spring- 
wheat areas between 52 and 57 per cent of the total wheat acreage of 
the 197 farms was grown at a cost not exceeding $2.65 per bushel, or 
the average for all farms. However, 79.3 per cent of the Grand 
Forks acreage was grown at $2.60 and less per bushel, whereas but 
6.5 per cent of the Morton County acreage came in this class. 

In the winter-wheat districts between 50 and 54 per cent of the 
total acreage was grown at a cost of $1.87 or less per bushel, the 
average for all farms. This figure varied from 15.8 per cent in 
Saline County, Nebr., to 84 per cent in Pawnee County, Kans. 

Thus in some counties the average cost per bushel for the entire 
acreage of spring wheat or winter wheat covers a high percentage of 
acreage grown, while in other counties a very small part of the acre- 
age was grown at the average cost. 



50 



BULLETIN 943, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table XXXIII. — Cumulative per cent of total wlieat acreage grown at various costs per 
bushel, by counties, spring wheat, 1919 (197 farms). 



Cost 
group. 




Cumulative per cent of harvested acreage 




Grand 

Forks 

County, 

N. Dak. 


Morton 


Spink 


Clay 


Traverse 


All 
farms. 




County, 
N. Dak. 


County, 
S. Dak. 


County, 

Minn. 


County, 
Minn. 


Per bushel. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


11.10 

1.20 
1.30 
1.40 
1.50 
1.60 
1.70 






0.6 
.0 
.6 
.6 
.0 
5.3 
7.7 






0.1 
.1 
1.0 
1.0 
1.7 
3.6 
4.7 










3.7 
3.7 
6.5 
10.0 
12.6 




















0.6 
.6 










1.80 
1.90 


18.1 
26.9 


.6 
.6 


21.5 
27.8 






9.1 
13.0 


0.8 


1.7 


2.00 


32.8 


1.7 


32.6 


.8 


2.3 


15.7 


2.10 


43.2 


1.7 


33.2 


5.9 


3.7 


19.8 


2.20 


51. 4 


1.7 


39.5 


7.1 


7.8 


24.1 


2.30 


63.4 


6.5 


42.1 


27.1 


17.4 


34.6 


2.40 


64.9 


6.5 


51.6 


28.4 


26.7 


38. 9 


2.50 


66.5 


6.5 


56. 9 


31.5 


31.9 


42.0 


2. GO 


79. 3 


6.5 


63.1 


48.7 


40.8 


52.0 


"2.65 
2.70 














80. 3 


6.5 


69.3 


59.4 


45.0 


50. 9 


2.80 


80.3 


7.2 


70.4 


61.7 


57.4 


59.8 


2.90 


85.9 


7. 2 


72.5 


64.6 


65.1 


63.5 


3.00 


88.5 


10.9 


75. 4 


64.6 


6S.7 


65.8 


3.10 


88.5 


10.9 


77.6 


64.6 


74.7 


67.3 


3.20 


88.5 


10.9 


, 77.6 


64.6 


81.8 


68.5 


3.30 


90.4 


24.1 


83.1 


64.6 


82.7 


72.1 


3.40 


93.4 


32.2 


86.5 


66.4 


82.7 


75.1 


3.50 


93. 4 


35. S 


86.5 


75.2 


88.4 


78.7 


3.60 


93.4 


:o.3 


86.5 


75. 2 


91.4 


79.8 


3.70 


93.4 


40. 3 


88.3 


77.9 


91.4 


80.8 


3.80 


93.4 


41.5 


S8.3 


87.6 


91.4 


83.3 


3.90 


93.4 


44.8 


90.0 


87.6 


94.2 


84.6 


4.00 


93.4 


44.8 


90.0 


87.6 


94.2 


84.6 


4.10 


93.4 


44.8 


93.4 


88.3 


94.2 


85.5 


4.20 


93. 4 


48.0 


93.4 


88.8 


99.3 


86.9 


4.30 


93.4 


49.7 


93.4 


90.5 


99.3 


87.6 


4.40 


93. 4 


49.7 


93.4 


96.6 


99.3 


89.1 


4.50 


93. 4 


49.7 


100.0 


97.9 


99.3 


90.9 


4.60 


94.9 


54.0 




97.9 


99.3 


91.9 


4.70 


9). 9 


62.6 




97.9 


99.3 


93.1 


4.80 


94.9 


62.6 




97.9 


99.3 


93.1 


4.90 


94.9 


64.3 




97.9 


100.0 


93.5 


5.00 
5 30 


95.5 
95.5 


64.3 
69.6 




100.0 




91.1 
94.8 






5.60 


95. 5 


73.8 








95.4 


5.70 


95.5 


76.7 








95.8 


6.00 


95. 5 


83.8 








96.8 


6.10 


100.0 


83.8 








97.8 


6.40 
8.30 
8.70 
10 20 




87.7 
88.7 
89. 4 
90.8 








98.3 
98.4 
98. 5 
98.7 


























10.40 
12.10 
14. 40 




94.3 
95. 7 
100.0 








99.2 
99. 4 
100.0 



























" Average cost per bushel for all spring wheat. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



51 



Table XXXIV. — Cumulative per cent of total wlieat acreage grown at various costs per 
bushel, by counties, winter wheat, 191!) | 2S4 farms). 



Cost 

group. 






Cumulative 


percent ofharvesl ed acreage. 






Ford 

County, 

Kans. 


Pawnee 

County, 

Kans. 


MePher- 

son 
County, 
Kans. 


Saline 

Count v. 

Mo. 


Jasper 

County, 
Mo. 


St. 
Charles 
County, 

Mo. 


Phelps 

County, 
Nebr. 


Saline 

County, 
Nebr. 


Keith 

County, 
Nebr. 


All 
farms. 


Per hush. 
$1.00 
1.10 
1.20 
1.30 
1.40 
1.50 
1.60 
1.70 
1.80 

a 1.87 

1.90 

2.00 
2.10 
2.20 
2.30 
2.40 
2.50 
2.60 
2.70 
2.80 
2.90 
3.00 
3.10 
3.20 
3.30 
3.40 
3.50 
3.60 
3.70 
3.80 
3.90 
4.00 
4.10 
4.20 
4.30 
5.10 
5.20 
8.20 


Pi /•(■( ui. 
3.3 
7.5 
8.5 
16.6 
20.4 
24.3 
34. 7 
43.9 
47.1 


I't r a ;u. 


/'< ret .it. 


Percent. 


Pi rccnt. 


Perct ii . 


1 'era :ii . 


Pi r ci ill . 


Percent. 

10.2 

10.2 
11.7 
22.1 
30.1 
5(1. 6 
54.4 
60.0 
67.7 


Percent. 

1.8 

3.9 

5.0 

9.1 

14.1 

20.9 

27.6 

37.3 

45.0 


5.2 
0.7 
10.8 
23.1 
29.7 
41.3 
63. ."> 
77.0 
















:',. s 
3.8 
3. S 
7.0 
7.0 
11.2 
25.0 




3.0 
7.7 
10.9 
28.5 
38.8 
51.8 
60.7 
















4.9 
18.7 

22.4 
36.0 

50. 6 




2.5 
2.5 
5.2 
6.7 
9.1 








2.7 
2.7 
9.2 


1.4 

2.8 


47.1 

55. 3 
59.8 
62.2 
66.5 
71.1 
76.9 
76.9 
87.8 
ST. 8 
87. S 
87.8 
87.8 
90.9 
90. 9 
90.9 
90.9 
90.9 
90.9 
90.9 
90.9 
90. 9 
90. 9 
90.9 
93.4 
96.5 


84.2 
84.2 
86. 8 
92.8 
95.5 
95.5 
95.5 
95.5 
97.7 
97.7 
97.7 
97.7 
97.7 
97.7 
97.7 
97.7 
97.7 
100.0 


16.1 
L9.8 

26.0 
34.7 
44.8 
50.9 
68.9 
73.2 
81.6 
81.6 
81.6 
84.7 
89.9 
92.5 
93.0 
93.0 
94.3 
94.3 
94.3 
96.1 
100. 


45.9 
48. !• 
51.2 
54.8 
67.9 
67. 9 
67.9 
67.9 
77.2 
80.0 
ST. t 
89. ii 
911.3 
90.3 
93.0 
93. 
93.0 
93.0 
96.2 
96.2 
96.2 
96.2 
98.3 
98.3 
98.3 


72.1 
92.5 
95.0 
100.0 


68. 2 

79.8 
s'i. 8 
92.4 
92:4 
100.0 


24. 5 
44.9 
53. 9 
53.9 
57.3 
67.0 
77.1 
80.0 
82.7 
87.5 
89.3 
89.3 
89.3 
89.3 
89.3 
93.9 
96.6 
100.0 


15. S 
27.0 
47.3 
60.9 
66. 4 
7s. 5 
SI. 7 
92.2 
94.0 
95. 
97.5 
97.5 
97.5 
97.5 
97.5 
97.5 
97.5 
100.0 


78.8 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
99.6 
100. 


54.2 
63.6 
68.8 
72.9 
76.9 
80.7 
85.2 
86.5 
91.3 
92.0 
92.7 
93.1 
93.8 
94.8 
95.0 
95.5 
95.9 
96.9 
97.1 
97.3 
97.7 
97.7 
97.8 
97.8 
98.4 
99.1 
99.2 
100.0 




























































































































































100. 












100.0 



































a Average cost per bushel for all winter wheat. 
CUMULATIVE PER CENT OF TOTAL PRODUCTION. 

Tables XXXV and XXXVI show the cumulative per cent of total 
production with reference to cost per bushel. 

In the spring-wheat areas about 67 per cent of the total bushels har- 
vested was grown on farms havings costs not in excess of the general 
average of $2.65 per bushel. This percentage varied in different 
counties. In Grand Forks County, 87 per cent of the production was 
grown at a cost of $2.60 or less, but in Morton County only 13.3 per 
cent was produced as cheaply as $2.60 per bushel. 

In the winter- wheat districts approximately 60 per cent of the total 
production was raised at the average cost or less per bushel. As in 
the spring-wheat districts, the cumulative per cent of production 
grown at various costs per bushel showed considerable variation 
among the various districts visited. 



52 



BULLETIN 943, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE. 



Table XXXV. — Cumulative per cent of total production, by counties, spring wheat, 1919 

(197 farms). 



Cost 
group. 


Cumulative per cent c f production. 


Grand 
Forks 
County, 
N. Dak. 


Morton 


Spink 


Clay 


Traverse 


All 
farms. 




County, 
N. Dak. 


County, 
S. Dak. 


County, 

Minn. 


County, 
Minn. 


Per bushel. 


/'u' cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cent. 


Per cert. 


I\r cent. 


Per cent. 


$1.10 
1.20 
1.30 
1.40 
1.50 
1.60 






1.3 
1.3 

1.3 
1.3 
1.3 

8.6 






0.3 
.3 
1.9 
1.9 
3.2 
6.4 










5.9 
5.9 
10.7 
15.0 




















1.2 






1 70 


17.9 


1.2 


12.1 






8.1 


1.80 


24.6 


1.2 


31.4 






14.9 


1.90 


35. 4 


1.2 


39.2 


1.6 


2.3 


20.6 


2.00 


12.9 


2.9 


45. 1 


1.6 


3.3 


24.5 


2.10 


54. 7 


2.9 


45.9 


8.8 


4.9 


29.8 


2.20 


62.4 


2.9 


52.6 


10.6 


• 10.3 


34.9 


2.30 


74.4 


13.3 


55.3 


35.6 


20.4 


47.1 


2.40 


76.1 


13.3 


62.5 


37.3 


30.9 


51.5 


2.50 


77.6 


13.3 


67.2 


40.7 


37.0 


54.9 


2.60 


86.9 


13.3 


72.3 


57.8 


46.4 


64.3 


a 2. 65 
2.70 














88.1 


13.3 


77.6 


69.5 


50.1 


69.3 


2.80 


88.1 


14.1 


78. 5 


71.9 


63.1 


72.3 


2.90 


91.8 


14.1 


79.7 


74.7 


71.1 


75.6 


3.00 


93.8 


19.0 


82.1 


74.7 


74.6 


77.7 


3.10 


93.8 


19.0 


84.3 


74.7 


79.7 


79.1 


3.20 


93.8 


19.0 


84.3 


74.7 


85.9 


80.1 


3.30 


94.9 


33.2 


89.2 


74.7 


86.8 


82.8 


3.40 


96.7 


43.4 


91.8 


76.6 


86.8 


85.1 


3.50 


96.7 


47.3 


91.8 


82.8 


91.5 


87.6 


3.60 


96.7 


53.4 


91.8 


82.8 


94.0 


88.5 


3.70 


96.7 


53.4 


92.9 


84.7 


94.0 


89.2 


3.80 


96.7 


54.4 


92.9 


91.5 


94.0 


90.9 


3.90 


96.7 


58.5 


93.9 


91.5 


95.5 


91.7 


4.00 


96.7 


58.5 


93.9 


91.5 


95.5 


91.7 


4.10 


96.7 


58.5 


96.2 


92.0 


95.5 


92.4 


4.20 


96.7 


61.9 


96.2 


92.4 


99.2 


93.3 


4.30 


96.7 


63.8 


96.2 


93.9 


99.2 


93.8 


4.40 


96.7 


63.8 


96.2 


97.7 


99.2 


94.7 


4.50 


96.7 


63.8 


100.0 


98.6 


99.2 


95.9 


4.60 


97.5 


67.7 




98.6 


99.2 


96.4 


4.70 


97.5 


73.9 




98.6 


99.2 


96.8 


4 80 


97.5 


73.9 




98.6 


99.2 


96.8 


4.90 


97.5 


75.7 




98.6 


100.0 


97.1 


5.00 
5.30 
5.60 
5.70 
6.00 
6.10 
6.40 
8.30 
8.70 
10.20 
10.40 
12.10 
14.40 


97 9 


75.7 




100.0 




97.5 


97 9 


81.5 








97.9 


97 9 


84.4 








98.1 


97 9 


87.6 








98.3 


97 9 


92.7 








98.7 


100 


92.7 








99.2 




95.3 
96.1 
96.6 
97.4 
98.6 
99.1 
100.0 








99.4 
99.5 
99.6 
99.7 
99.8 
99.9 
100.0 




















































1 



a Average cost per bushel for all spring wheat. 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



53 



Table XXXVI. — Cumulative per cent of total production, by counties, winter wheat, 

191 'J i 284 farms). 



Cost 

group. 


Cumulative percent of total production. 


Ford 

County, 

Kans. 


Pawnee 

County, 

Kans. 


McPher- 

son 

County, 

Kans. 


Saline 

County, 

Mo. 


Jasper 

County, 

Mo. 


St. 
Charles 
County, 

Mo.' 


Phelps 

County, 

Nebr. 


Saline 
County, 

Nebr. 


Keith 

County, 
Nebr". 


All 
farms. 


Per bush. 
SI. 00 
1.10 
1.20 
1.30 
1.40 
1.50 
1.60 
1.70 
1.80 
1.87a 
1.90 
2.00 
2.10 
2.20 
2.30 
2.40 
2.50 
2.60 
2.70 
2.80 
2.90 
3.00 
3.10 
3.20 
3.30 
3.40 
3.50 
3.60 
3.70 
3.80 
3.90 
4.00 
4.10 
4.20 
4.30 
5.10 
5.20 
8.20 


Percent. 
4.2 
11.3 
12.8 
24.9 
31.1 
37.2 
52. 1 
61.0 
61.6 


Perct at. 


Percent. 


Percent. 


Percent. 


Percent. 


Percent. 


Per cent. 


Percent. 
11.3 
11.3 
13.4 
25. 1 
34.5 
55.6 
58.6 
64.9 
72.8 


Per cent. 

2.3 

5.1 

6.5 

12.0 

18.5 

27.5 

35.2 

45.1 

53.6 


6.9 
7.8 
12.9 
28.5 
35.9 
18.5 
69.2 
82.7 
















1.6 
4.6 
4.6 
9.0 
9.0 
15.2 
31.4 




3.6 
9.1 
12.5 
33.6 
43.6 
56.8 
65.7 
















5.2 
20. 4 
24.1 
38.3 
53.3 




3.0 
3.0 
6.4 
8.3 
11.0 








4.3 

4.3 
11.4 


1.8 
3.8 


64.6 
74.5 
77.3 
78.9 
82.9 
86.3 
90.4 
90.4 
96.8 
96.8 
96.8 
96.8 
96.8 
98.1 
98. 1 
98.1 
98. r 
98.1 
98.1 
98.1 
98. 1 
98. 1 
98.1 
98.1 
98.7 
99.4 


89.7 
89.7 
91.7 
96.3 
97.9 
97.9 
97.9 
97.9 
99.2 
99.2 
99.2 
99.2 
99.2 
99.2 
99.2 
99.2 
99.2 
100.0 


22. 1 
25.7 
31.8 
41.2 
52. 1 
58.2 
76.1 
80.8 
88.0 
88.0 
88.0 
90.4 
91. 1 
95.5 
96.0 
96.0 
96.9 
96.9 
96.9 
97.9 
100.0 


51.9 
58.2 
60.6 
65.4 
75.5 
75.5 
75.5 
75.5 
84.3 
86.2 
92.6 
93.6 
94.5 
91.:. 
96.7 
96.7 
96.7 
96.7 
98.2 
98.2 
98.2 
98.2 
99.2 


74.0 
92.9 
95.4 
100.0 


73.8 
85.0 
93 
95.0 
95.0 
100.0 


30.4 
51. 1 
64.5 
64.5 
68.0 
76.4 
84.8 

Mi. 7 
89.1 
93. 1 
94.4 
94.4 
94.4 
94.4 
94.4 
97.0 
98. 4 


18.6 
30.6 
51.8 
66.0 
71.5 
82.2 
85.2 
91. 5 
95.9 
96.7 
98.6 
98.6 
98.6 
98.6 
98.6 
98.6 
98.6 
100.0 


83.5 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 
99.8 


63.9 
73.7 
78.4 
82.2 
85.5 
88.5 
91.8 
92.9 
95.9 
96.4 
97.0 
97.3 






























100.0 








98. 1 








98.3 









98.5 








98.7 






100.0 




99. 1 








99.2 












99.3 













99.5 













99.5 














99.6 















99.6 
















99.7 
















99.8 






100.0 










99.9 


100.0 














100.0 





















a Average cost per bushel for all winter wheat. 



54 BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

INDIVIDUAL COSTS PER ACRE. 

Table XXXVII shows costs per acre for each of the owned farms 
covered by the survey. 

Table XXXVII . — Individual costs per acre on owned land, spring and winter wheat, 1919 

(327 farms). 



Rec- 
ord 
num- 
ber. 



Acres 
har- 
vest- 
ed. 



Labor. 



Factors of cost, per aero. 



Mate- 
rial. 



Tli rash- 



Miscel- 
laneous. 



Total 
gross 
cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 



Credit. 



Total 
net 

cost, 

with- 
out 

rent. 



Rent 
(inter- 
est on 
invest- 
ment). 



Total net cost, 
with rent. 



Per 
acre. 



Per 

bushel. 



SPRING WHEAT. 
Grand Forks County, N. Dak. 



375 
280 
260 
173 
200 
180 

65 

63 
553 
475 
236 
110 

65 
200 

80 
410 

90 
300 
295 
160 
300 

15 
155 
450 



$6.25 
7.43 
3.63 
6.59 
5.42 
8.88 
4.84 
9.37 
7.02 
5.66 
8.07 
6.53 
7.54 
5.5S 
5.83 
5.55 
6.30 
8.06 
5.37 
6.61 
6.25 
6.63 
7.69 
5.46 



$3.59 
4.63 
3.60 
4.67 
3.47 
4.66 
3.94 
3.94 
4.27 
3.80 
4.26 
3.99 
4.10 
4.15 
3.19 
2.81 
3.28 
4.01 
4.47 
3.76 
4.22 
4.19 
4.63 
1. 57 



$2.72 
3.21 
2.88 
3.58 
3.67 
3.19 
2.12 
4.00 
2.25 
3.18 
3. IS 
2.24 
2.07 
3.92 
1.75 
3.66 
2.78 
4.77 
1.87 
2.25 
2.50 
3.82 
2.58 
2.22 



$3.22 
5.12 
3.92 
3.95 
3.29 
4.66 
3.08 
4.86 
3.50 
3.40 
4.76 
3.35 
4.46 
5.22 
3.34 
4.40 
3.97 
5.20 
3.44 
3.73 
4.44 
3.53 
5.40 

10.18 



$15. 78 
20.39 
14.03 
18.79 
15. 85 
21.39 
13.98 
22.17 
17.04 
16.04 
20.27 
16.11 
18. 17 
18.87 
14.11 
16.42 
16.33 
22. 04 
15.15 
16. 35 
17.41 
18.17 
20.30 
22.43 



0.36 
.50 



.46 
.63 
.09 



.20 
2. 33 

.32 

.89 



$15. 78 
20.03 
13. 53 
18.79 
15.85 
21.39 
13.52 
21.54 
16.95 
16.04 
20.06 
16.11 
17.40 
18.70 
14.11 
16.42 
16. 33 
21.87 
14. 85 
16.35 
17.21 
15.84 
19.98 
21. 54 



5.40 
6.00 
3.60 
2.40 
4.50 
5.40 
4.50 
4.20 
6.00 
4.50 
5.40 
4.20 
3.30 
5.40 
5.40 
5.40 
5.10 
5.10 
7.50 
3.00 
3.60 
3.60 
6.00 



$19. 38 
25.43 
19.53 
22.39 
18.25 
25.89 
18.92 
26.04 
21.15 
22.04 
24.56 
21. 51* 
21.60 
22.00 
19.51 
21.82 
21.73 
26.97 
19.95 
23. 85 
20.21 
19.44 
23.58 
27.54 



$1.26 
1.52 
1.63 
1.64 
1.66 
1.71 
1.72 
1.75 
1.76 
1.87 
1.88 
1.89 
1.92 
1.95 
2.08 
2.14 
2.24 
2.31 
2.67 
2.98 
3.37 
3.89 
4.57 
6.12 



Morton County, N. Dak. 



1 


35 


$6.13 


$2.84 


$0.81 


$3.11 


$12. 89 


$1.14 


$11.75 


$2. 40 


$14.15 


$1.64 


8.6 


2 


63 


6.33 


2.05 


.59 


3.76 


12. 73 


.71 


12.02 


2.10 


14.12 


2.03 


6.9 


3 


12 


5.51 


3.15 


.66 


3.12 


12.44 


1.50 


10. 94 


3.00 


13.94 


2.29 


6.1 


4 


280 


10. 58 


3.83 


.93 


4.27 


19.61 


.18 


19. 43 


2.70 


22.13 


2.29 


9.6 


5 


40 


8.22 


2.52 


.50 


3.36 


14.60 


2.50 


12. 10 


1.80 


13. 90 


2.78 


5.0 


6 


65 


11.41 


3.68 


.64 


4.54 


20.27 


.77 


19. 50 


2.10 


21. 60 


2.99 


7.2 


7 


150 


7.23 


2.71 


.57 


4.07 


14.58 


.53 


14. 05 


2.10 


16.15 


3.04 


5.3 


8 


275 


8.03 


3.54 


.83 


6.45 


18.85 


.25 


is. 60 


2.10 


20. 70 


3.G6 


6.8 


9 


500 


4.13 


3.14 


.33 


2.86 


10.46 


.20 


10. 26 


3.00 


13. 26 


3. 19 


4.2 


10 


50 


9.65 


4.28 


.60 


9.95 


24.48 




24.48 


2.10 


26.58 


3.32 


8.0 


11 


210 


8.99 


3.11 


.37 


3.23 


15.70 


.31 


15.39 


1.50 


16.89 


3.50 


4.8 


12 


260 


11.68 


3.18 


.65 


5.00 


20.51 


.77 


19.74 


1.80 


21.54 


3.57 


6.0 


13 


30 


9.63 


2.92 


.64 


3.35 


16.54 


.30 


16.24 


1.20 


17.44 


3.71 


4.7 


14 


25 


11.64 


3.14 


.69 


6.49 


21.96 


.28 


21.68 


1.80 


23.48 


3.86 


6.1 


15 


120 


10.28 


4.19 


.48 


4.68 


19.63 


1.25 


18.38 


3.60 


21.98 


3.92 


5.6 


16 


140 


5.54 


3.15 


.30 


4.02 


13.01 


.27 


12.74 


1.80 


14. 54 


4.11 


3.5 


17 


40 


9.38 


3.43 


.53 


5.04 


18.38 


.60 


17.78 


2.40 


20.18 


4.12 


4.9 


18 


100 


8.95 


3.38 


.46 


4.21 


17.00 


.50 


16.50 


1.50 


18.00 


4.23 


4.3 


19 


100 


9.34 


3.13 


.52 


5.47 


18.46 


.75 


17.71 


3.60 


21.31 


4.30 


5.0 


20 


150 


8.59 


4.24 


.30 


3.27 


16.40 


.50 


15. 90 


2.40 


18.30 


4.58 


4.0 


21 


100 


8.95 


3.34 


.36 


4.67 


17.32 


.45 


16.87 


1.80 


IS. 67 


4.60 


4.1 


22 


100 


12.09 


2.32 


.50 


5.25 


20.16 


.18 


19.98 


1.80 


21.78 


4.74 


4.6 


23 


100 


10.62 


3.59 


.53 


7.41 


22.15 


1.08 


21.07 


2.10 


23.17 


4.88 


4.8 


24 


150 


8.79 


3.01 


.37 


15.03 


27.20 


.80 


26.40 


1.50 


27.90 


5.28 


5.3 


25 


160 


13.14 


3.14 


.46 


4.79 


21.53 


.19 


21.34 


1.50 


22.81 


5.33 


4.3 


26 


60 


7.98 


2.52 


.25 


2.85 


13.60 


.20 


13. 40 


2.10 


15.50 


5.57 


2.8 


27 


186 


8.07 


3.46 


.25 


4.81 


16.59 


.67 


15.92 


2.10 


18.02 


5.64 


3.2 


28 


170 


10.45 


4.01 


.52 


12.36 


27.34 


1.47 


25.87 


2.10 


27.97 


5.68 


4.9 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



55 



Table XXXVII. — Individual costs per acre on owned land, spring and winter viheat, 1919 

{827 farms) — Continued. 



Acres 
har- 
vest- 
ed. 






Factors of cost, per acre. 






Total net cost, 
with rent. 


Labor. 


Mate- 
rial. 


Thrash- 
ing. 


Miscel- 
laneous. 


Total 
gross 
cost, 
with- 
out 
rent . 


Credit. 


Total 
net 

cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 


Rent 
(inter- 
est on 
invest- 
ment). 


Per 

acre. 


Pel 

bushel. 



Yield 
per 
acre. 



SPRING WHEAT— Coctinued. 
Morton County, N. Dak.— Continued. 



29 


140 


$9.31 


$3.17 


$0.27 


$4.82 


$17.57 


$2.32 


$15. 25 


$2.40 


$17.65 


$5. 98 


3.0 


30 


275 


10. 75 


2.26 


.35 


5.02 


18.38 


.45 


17. 93 


2.10 


20. 03 


6.03 


3.3 


31 


100 


8.78 


4.20 


.28 


4.04 


17.30 


.33 


16.97 


3.00 


19. 97 


6.79 


2.9 


32 


23 


6.19 


2.70 


.18 


4.56 


13.63 


.22 


13. 41 


1.50 


11.91 


7. I.", 


2.0 


33 


60 


8.79 


3.23 


.36 


16.39 


28.77 


.83 


27.94 


1.80 


29.74 


8.30 


3.6 


34 


80 


14.62 


4.40 


.24 


4.71 


24.00 


.32 


23.68 


1.50 


25.18 


10.17 


2.5 


35 


205 


7.44 


3.28 


.24 


3.37 


14. 33 


.15 


14. IS 


1.50 


15.68 


10.44 


1.5 


36 


80 


8.55 


2.43 


.20 


7.20 


18.38 


.75 


17.63 


3.00 


l'ii. 63 


12. 13 


1.7 


37 


250 


6.38 


3.01 


.10 


3.01 


12.50 


.20 


12. 30 


1.50 


13.80 


14.38 


1.0 



Spink County, S. Dak. 



1 


60 


$5.82 


$3. 14 


$5. 00 


$4. 30 


$18.26 


$0.42 


$17.84 


$6. 00 


$23. 84 


11.15 


20.8 


2 


120 


5.97 


4.03 


3.53 


3.33 


16. 86 




16.86 


6.00 


22. 86 


1.39 


16.4 


3 


60 


8.96 


3.89 


1.11 


4.77 


18. 73 


2.25 


16. 4S 


6.00 


22. 4S 


1.79 


12.6 


4 


135 


5.44 


3.97 


2.95 


4.04 


16.40 


.30 


16.10 


6. 0!) 


22.10 


2.01 


11.0 


5 


145 


6.73 


2.20 


3.49 


3.65 


16.07 


.25 


15.82 


8.10 


23.92 


2.03 


11.8 


6 


180 


8.11 


3.13 


3.58 


4.31 


19.13 


.05 


19. 08 


7.50 


26.58 


2.03 


13.1 


7 


60 


10.52 


3.69 


1.35 


4.14 


19.70 




19.70 


7.50 


27.20 


2.15 


12.7 


8 


100 


4.17 


2.99 


2.08 


4.09 


13.33 




13. 33 


6.00 


19.33 


2.18 


8.8 


9 


200 


8.18 


3.73 


2.73 


4.22 


18.86 


.25 


18.61 


7.50 


26.11 


2.25 


11.6 


10 


85 


6.97 


3.10 


3.18 


4.89 


18.14 


.59 


17. 55 


9.60 


27.15 


2.30 


11.8 


11 


163 


7.46 


3.80 


3.04 


3.74 


18.04 


.61 


17.43 


6.00 


23.43 


2.39 


9.8 


12 


250 


6.79 


3.05 


2.97 


4.54 


17.35 




17. 35 


9.00 


26.35 


2.48 


10.6 


13 


85 


4.78 


3.46 


1.91 


4.18 


14.33 




14. 33 


6.00 


20.33 


2. 63 


7.7 


14 


300 


5.56 


3.43 


2.59 


4.17 


15.75 


.33 


15.42 


9.00 


24.42 


2.66 


9.2 


15 


100 


6.20 


2.58 


2.92 


3.85 


15.55 


.50 


15.05 


6.00 


21.05 


2.68 


7.8 


16 


190 


6.68 


4.19 


1.01 


3.17 


15.68 


.53 


15.15 


6.00 


21.15 


2.71 


7.8 


17 


100 


4.71 


3.04 


3.10 


4.52 


15.37 


.25 


1.5. 12 


9.00 


24.12 


2.82 


8.6 


18 


75 


10.14 


5.42 


2.35 


5.79 


23.70 




23. 70 


9.00 


32.70 


3.03 


10.8 


19 


210 


7.64 


4.08 


2.55 


4.41 


is. i;s 




18. 68 


12.00 


30.68 


3.10 


9.9 


20 


40 


8.39 


2.98 


2.24 


3.70 


17.31 




17.31 


5.40 


22. 71 


3.13 


7.2 


21 


100 


7.44 


3.01 


2.36 


3.91 


16.72 


.12 


16. 60 


6.00 


22.60 


3.30 


6.8 


22 


525 


8.26 


3.61 


4.69 


3.74 


20. 30 


.05 


20.25 


9.00 


29.25 


3.35 


7.8 


23 


320 


6.07 


3.04 


2.28 


5.50 


16.89 


.47 


16. 42 


9.60 


26.02 


3.42 


7.6 


24 


160 


5.59 


3.31 


1.97 


6.68 


17.55 




17.55 


6.00 


23. 55 


3. 90 


6.0 


25 


120 


8.40 


3.26 


1.08 


3.54 


16.28 


.50 


15.78 


7.50 


23.28 


3.98 


5.8 


26 


320 


8.06 


3.29 


1.78 


3.94 


17.07 


.25 


16.82 


10.50 


27.32 


4.11 


6.6 


27 


300 


11.94 


3.48 


1.16 


4.20 


20. 78 


.33 


20. 45 


7.50 


27. 95 


4.49 


6.2 


28 


330 


5.76 


3. 31 


.'{. 28 


3.50 


15. 85 


.25 


15. 60 


7.50 


23.10 


4.54 


5.1 



Clay County, Minn. 



1 


58 


$6.89 


14.45 


10.90 


$3.78 


$16.08 


$0.26 


$15. 82 


$7.50 


$23. 32 


$1.54 


|.">. 1 


2 


80 


9.86 


5.18 


3. 45 


5. 76 


24. 25 


.31 


23.94 


7.50 


31.41 


1.90 


16.6 


3 


160 


9.46 


5.50 


1 . 76 


4.80 


21.52 


.13 


21.39 


6.00 


27.39 


2.08 


13.2 


4 


127 


8.09 


3.72 


1.16 


4.48 


17.45 




17. 45 


9.00 


26.45 


2.19 


12.1 


5 


85 


5.84 


3.66 


1.10 


4.32 


14.92 


.16 


14.76 


6.00 


20. 76 


2.42 


8.6 


6 


35 


5.32 


3.81 


.92 


4.15 


14.20 


.11 


14.09 


12.00 


26.09 


2.47 


10.6 


7 


900 


5.68 


4.25 


.85 


3.35 


14.13 


1.39 


12.74 


9.00 


21.74 


2.62 


8.3 


8 


120 


10.02 


5.82 


1.50 


6.14 


23.54 


.21 


23. 33 


9.00 


32.33 


2.69 


12.0 


9 


110 


9.19 


4.27 


1.46 


4.47 


19.39 


.45 


18. 94 


12. 00 


30.94 


2.71 


11.4 


10 


930 


4.64 


4.64 


1.20 


6.41 


16.89 


.48 


16.41 


12.00 


28.41 


2.80 


10.2 


11 


240 


7.82 


3.95 


1.25 


3.98 


17.00 


.42 


16.58 


6.60 


23.18 


2.81 


8.2 


12 


300 


9.36 


3.74 


.97 


3.55 


17. 62 


.17 


17. 45 


6.00 


23. 45 


2.93 


8.0 


13 


90 


10.30 


4.60 


1.27 


4.53 


20.70 


.56 


20.14 


6.00 


26.14 


3.36 


7.8 


14 


100 


12.81 


4.91 


1.74 


6.34 


25.80 


.50 


25. 30 


6.00 


31.30 


3.43 


9.1 


15 


280 


6.13 


4.36 


.79 


6.74 


18.02 


.23 


17.79 


6.60 


24.39 


3.48 


7.0 


16 


160 


4.36 


4.99 


.74 


6.07 


16.16 


1.25 


14.91 


9.00 


23.91 


3.71 


6.4 


17 


75 


8.81 


4.58 


1.91 


4.66 


19.96 


1.04 


18.92 


10. 50 


29. 42 


3.79 


7.8 


18 


800 


8.47 


3.67 


1.36 


3.05 


16.55 


156 


14.99 


6.00 


20.99 


3.83 


5.5 



56 



BULLETIN 943, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table XXXVII . — Individual costs per acre on owned land, spring and winter wheat, 1919 

(827 farms) — Continued. 



Rec- 
ord 
num- 
ber. 



Acres 
har- 
vest- 
ed. 






Fad 


ors of cost, per acre. 






Total net cost, 
with rent. 


Labor. 


Mate- 
rial. 


Thrash- 
ing. 


Miscel- 
laneous. 


Total 
gross 
cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 


Credit. 


Total 
net 
cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 


Rent 

(inter- 
est on 
invest, 
ment). 


Per 
acre. 


Per 
bushel. 



SPRING WHEAT— Continued. 
Clay County, Minn.— Continued. 



19 


70 


$8.71 


$5.41 


$0.94 


$3.95 


$19. 01 




$19. 01 


$7.50 


$26. 51 


20 


100 


8.97 


4.07 


.93 


3.82 


17.79 


$0.16 


17. 63 


6.00 


23.63 


21 


180 


11.34 


4.24 


2.41 


6.76 


24.75 


1.11 


23.64 


7.50 


31.14 


22 


250 


10.50 


3.90 


2.43 


3.85 


20.68 


.20 


20.48 


6.00 


26.48 


23 


130 


11.47 


6.29 


1.43 


5.94 


25.13 


3.08 


22. 05 


7.50 


29.55 


24 


220 


7.08 


3.82 


.48 


6.38 


17.76 


.68 


17.08 


9.00 


26.08 


25 


30 


7.73 


4.48 


1.56 


3.72 


17.49 




17.49 


9.00 


26.49 


26 


to 


8.12 


4.07 


1.25 


5.31 


18.75 


.41 


18.31 


6.00 


24.31 



$4.08 


6.5 


4.30 


5.5 


4.32 


7.2 


4.41 


6.C 


4.49 


6.6 


5.02 


5.2 


5.30 


5.C 


6.68 


3.6 



Traverse County, Minn. 



1 


120 


$8. 63 


S3. 48 


$1.48 


C3.27 


$16. 86 


$0.34 


$16. 52 


$4.80 


'$21.32 


$1.91 


11.2 


2 


97 


8.46 


3.33 


1.29 


4.69 


17.77 


.32 


17.45 


9.00 


26.45 


2.02 


13.1 


3 


45 


9.99 


4.99 


1.45 


5.08 


21.51 




21.51 


5.40 


26.91 


2.05 


13.1 


4 


100 


8.68 


4.40 


1.30 


3.02 


17.40 


1.60 


15.80 


4.80 


20. 60 


2.10 


9.8 


5 


70 


10.77 


4.02 


1.41 


4.23 


20. 43 




20. 43 


6.00 


26.43 


2.22 


11.9 


6 


160 


8.13 


4.76 


1.44 


4.34 


18.67 


.94 


17.73 


7.50 


25.23 


2.24 


11.2 


7 


30 


7.80 


4.02 


1.04 


2.94 


15.80 


.27 


15.53 


6.00 


21.53 


2.27 


9.5 


8 


500 


7.99 


3.71 


.97 


2.98 


15. 65 


.30 


15. 35 


4.80 


20.15 


2.28 


8.8 


9 


70 


7.99 


4.29 


1.60 


3.S4 


17. 72 


.36 


17.36 


6.00 


23. 36 


2.31 


10.1 


10 


275 


5.11 


4.01 


.75 


5.29 


15.16 


.45 


14.71 


6.00 


20.71 


2.40 


8.6 


11 


33 


10.59 


4.04 


2.45 


4.35 


21.43 


.45 


20.98 


12.00 


32.98 


2.44 


13.6 


1? 


90 


8.86 


3.92 


.93 


5.27 


18.98 


.20 


18.78 


7.50 


26.28 


2.44 


10.8 


13 


100 


12.29 


4.38 


1.57 


5.04 


23.28 


.13 


23.15 


6.00 


29.15 


2.50 


11.6 


14 


160 


10.18 


4.45 


1.47 


4.46 


20. 56 


.50 


20.06 


7.80 


27.86 


2.53 


11.0 


15 


230 


8.20 


4.47 


.90 


2.84 


16.41 


.05 


16.36 


4. SO 


21.16 


2.61 


8.1 


16 


300 


5.90 


3.18 


.96 


4.67 


14.71 


.67 


14.04 


6.00 


20.04 


2.73 


7.4 


17 


50 


8.09 


4.14 


.97 


3.57 


16.77 


.66 


16.11 


7.50 


23.61 


2.75 


8.6 


18 


340 


10.90 


3.48 


1.48 


3.97 


19.89 


.15 


19.74 


7.20 


26.94 


2.78 


9.7 


10 


165 


5.61 


3.56 


1.13 


5.28 


15.58 


.30 


15.28 


7.50 


22.78 


2.78 


8.2 


?0 


70 


9.86 


4.12 


.88 


3.47 


18.33 


1.00 


17.33 


6.00 


23.33 


2.79 


8.4 


21 


160 


9.35 


3.55 


.98 


4.11 


17.99 




17.99 


6.00 


23.99 


2.79 


8.6 


?.?, 


90 


11.23 


4.63 


1.07 


4.21 


21.14 


.39 


20.75 


7.20 


27.95 


2.85 


9.8 


?3 


40 


8.32 


3.97 


1.66 


3.71 


17.66 




17.66 


6.00 


23.66 


2.86 


8.3 


24 


200 


10.87 


3.70 


1.69 


4.00 


20.26 


.25 


20.01 


4.80 


24.81 


2.93 


8.5 


?5 


200 


8.78 


4.42 


1.13 


3.69 


IS. 02 


.10 


17.92 


7.50 


25.42 


2.94 


8.6 


r. 


155 


8.77 


4.53 


1.70 


3.50 


IS. 50 




18.50 


9.00 


27.50 


2.99 


9.2 


?7 


225 


9.57 


3.35 


.71 


3.61 


17.24 




17.24 


6.00 


23.24 


3.06 


7.6 


28 


230 


11.17 


4.14 


1.17 


3.78 


20.26 


.22 


20.04 


6.00 


26.04 


3.18 


8.2 


29 


40 


10.83 


3.29 


2.65 


4.03 


20.80 


.27 


20. 53 


6.00 


26.53 


3.22 


8.2 


30 


60 


12.68 


4.04 


1.43 


4.91 


23.06 


.42 


22.64 


7.50 


30.14 


3.29 


9.2 


31 


100 


9.29 


4.29 


.93 


4.13 


18.64 


1.00 


17.64 


9.00 


26.64 


3.46 


7.7 


32 


300 


8.25 


4.45 


.77 


2.97 


16.44 




16.44 


7.50 


23.94 


3.54 


6.0 


33 


210 


11.04 


4.13 


.80 


4.29 


20.26 




20.26 


4.80 


25.06 


3.58 


7.0 


34 


90 


8.03 


4.50 


1.14 


3.16 


16.83 


.50 


16.33 


6.00 


22.33 


3.59 


6.2 


35 


360 


8.80 


4.40 


1.22 


4.14 


18.56 




18.56 


7.50 


26.06 


4.24 


6.2 


36 


51 


17.73 


5.77 


2.94 


9.65 


36.09 


.25 


35.84 


12.00 


47.84 


4.93 


9.7 



WINTER WHEAT. 
Ford County, Kans. 



1 


320 


$9.29 


$2.06 


$0.42 


$2. 48 


$14.25 


$0.84 


$13.41 


$3.60 


$17. 01 


$0. 98 


17.4 


2 


90 


10.30 


1.85 


4.48 


5.08 


21.71 


2.90 


18.81 


3.00 


21.81 


.99 


22. C 


3 


200 


13.43 


2.68 


4.59 


5.16 


25.86 


3.60 


22.26 


3.60 


25.86 


1.06 


24.3 


4 


300 


8.95 


2.53 


4.45 


5.39 


21/32 


.54 


20.78 


' 4.50 


25.28 


1.15 


22.0 


5 


220 


10.41 


2.35 


4.00 


4.37 


21.13 


1.73 


19. 40 


3.60 


23.00 


1.15 


20.0 


6 


100 


9.79 


2.88 


3.49 


5.85 


22.01 


1.20 


20.81 


3.00 


23.81 


1.24 


19.2 


7 


335 


9.9,4 


2.24 


3.10 


4.60 


19.88 


.36 


19.52 


3.00 


22.52 


1.26 


17.9 


8 


240 


11.15 


2.73 


4.44 


5.65 


23.97 




23.97 


4.50 


28.47 


1.29 


22.0 


9 


190 


7.50 


1.65 


2.20 


4.53 


15.88 


.31 


15.57 


3.00 


18.57 


1.29 


14.4 


10 


190 


8.87 


1.72 


3.92 


3.37 


17.88 


.05 


17.83 


2.40 


20.23 


1.29 


15.7 


11 


110 


9.72 


1.64 


3.86 


5.76 


20.98 


1.56 


19.42 


3.00 


22.42 


1.34 


16.8 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



57 



Table XXXVII. — Individual costs per acre on owned land, spring and winter wheat, 1919 

(S?7 farms) — Continued. 



Acres 
har- 
vest- 
ed. 






Factors of cost, per acre. 






Total net cost, 
with rent. 


Labor. 


Mate- 
rial. 


Thrash- 
ing. 


Miscel- 
laneous. 


Total 
gross 
cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 


Credit. 


Total 
net 

cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 


Rent 
(inter- 
est on 

invest- 
ment). 


Per 
acre. 


Pe" 

bushel. 



Yield 
per 



WINTER WHEAT— Continued. 
Ford County, Kans.— Continued. 



12 


100 


$9.41 


$1.36 


$2.85 


$2. 44 


$16. 06 


SO. 34 


$15.72 


$2.40 


S18. 12 


$1.41 


12.9 


13 


80 


12.35 


2.01 


2.90 


5.36 


22.62 


2.37 


20.25 


3.00 


23.25 


1.55 


15.0 


14 


230 


11.89 


2.73 


3.46 


6.23 


24.31 


.09 


24.22 


3.00 


27.22 


1.60 


17.0 


15 


175 


11.41 


1.73 


2.65 


4.53 


20.32 


.20 


20.12 


3.00 


23.12 


1.69 


13.7 


16 


105 


7.72 


2.43 


2.10 


5. 11 


17.36 


.69 


16.67 


3. 00 


19.67 


1.90 


10.4 


17 


140 


8.48 


1.50 


2.42 


4.23 


16. 63 


1.42 


15.21 


3.60 


18.81 


2.09 


9.0 


18 


80 


13.74 


1.96 


1.77 


3.88 


21.35 


.78 


20.57 


3.60 


24.17 


2.15 


11.2 


19 


200 


13.71 


3.29 


1.67 


4.70 


23.37 


.70 


22.67 


3.00 


25.67 


2.62 


9.8 


20 


250 


8.00 


1.52 


.63 


3.24 


13.39 


1.60 


11.79 


3.00 


14.79 


4.35 


3.4 


21 


200 


6.61 


2.80 


.82 


2.70 


12.93 




12.93 


3.00 


15.93 


4.90 


3.2 


22 


145 


8.78 


1.70 


.38 


3.96 


14.82 


.31 


14.51 


2.40 


16.91 


8.04 


2.1 


23 


70 


6.30 


1.98 


.76 


7.92 


16. 96 


.36 


16.60 


3.00 


19.60 


13.72 


1.4 



Pawnee County, Kans. 



1 


75 


$6.91 


$2.88 


$3.01 


$4. 40 


$17. 20 


$2.72 


$14. 48 


$6.00 


$20. 48 


$1.05 


19.5 


2 


470 


6.46 


2.51 


3.33 


4.26 


16.56 


1.36 


15.20 


4. SO 


20.00 


1.08 


18.5 


3 


120 


6.Q.7 


1.91 


3.47 


4.41 


i;>. Mi 


.40 


15.46 


6.00 


21.46 


1.12 


19.2 


4 


87 


8.94 


1.78 


3.84 


4.24 


is. so 


.06 


18. 74 


4.50 


23.24 


1.16 


20.0 


5 


135 


6.99 


3.86 


1.33 


4.57 


16.75 


10.70 


6.05 


4.50 


10.55 


1.20 


8.8 


6 


140 


4.26 


2.91 


3.46 


5.24 


15. 87 


.86 


15.01 


4.50 


19.51 


1.37 


14.3 


7 


310 


7.92 


1.73 


3.76 


6.89 


20.30 


1.02 


19.28 


6.00 


25.28 


1.44 


17.5 


8 


25 


5.99 


1.55 


3.40 


4. 95 


15. S9 


.68 


15.21 


4.50 


19.71 


1.52 


13.0 


9 


160 


8.86 


2.03 


3.32 


3.17 


17.38 


1.97 


15.41 


6.00 


21.41 


1.56 


13.8 


10 


no 


6.16 


2.49 


2.74 


4.68 


16.07 


.45 


16.62 


6.Q0 


21.62 


1.59 


13.6 


11 


400 


5.89 


3.41 


2.50 


4.08 


15.88 


.10 


15.78 


4. SO 


20.58 


1.66 


12.4 


12 


240 


6.96 


2.00 


2.69 


7.27 


18.92 


1.30 


17.62 


4.80 


22.42 


1.67 


13.5 


13 


80 


10.84 


2.67 


3.55 


7.29 


24.35 


1.40 


22.95 


6.00 


28.95 


1.70 


17.0 


14 


140 


7.28 


3.00 


2.36 


6.13 


18.77 


1.42 


17. 35 


5.40 


22.75 


1.75 


13.0 


15 


80 


6.92 


2.20 


2.25 


6.16 


17.53 


1.33 


16.20 


4.50 


20.70 


1.88 


11.0 


16 


305 


5.75 


2.21 


1.91 


5.59 


15.46 


.80 


14.66 


6.00 


20.66 


2.16 


9.5 


17 


250 


5.83 


2.05 


1.56 


4.11 


13.55 


.09 


13.46 


4.80 


18.26 


2.28 


8.0 



McPherson County, Kans. 



1 


45 


$12.90 


$4.02 


$2.99 


$4.09 


$24.00 


$1.71 


$22. 29 


$7.20 


$29.49 


$1.68 


17.8 


2 


33 


11.49 


2.58 


3.71 


5.78 


23.56 


.61 


22.95 


9.00 


31.95 


1.75 


18.3 


3 


60 


13.39 


3.43 


3.78 


7.13 


27.73 




27.73 


9.00 


36.73 


1.88 


18.9 


4 


20 


7.94 


2.70 


3.31 


9.72 


23.67 


3.10 


20.57 


9.00 


29.57 


1.90 


15.0 


5 


120 


11.02 


4.06 


2.96 


4.98 


23.02 


.50 


22.52 


9.00 


31.52 


2.25 


14.0 


6 


120 


10.92 


3.62 


2.96 


4.45 


21.95 


.74 


21. 21 


6.00 


27.21 


2.27 


12.0 


7 


60 


9.94 


2.97 


2.07 


4.24 


19.22 


1.50 


17.72 


7.50 


25.22 


2.47 


10.2 


8 


80 


10.88 


3.60 


2.22 


5.24 


21.94 


.09 


21.85 


6.00 


27.85 


2.54 


10.0 


9 


320 


13.53 


3.81 


2.98 


5.61 


25.93 


.67 


25.26 


9.00 


34.26 


2.64 


13.0 


10 


80 


11.22 


2.75 


1.83 


5. 09 


20.89 


.79 


20.10 


7.50 


27.60 


2.91 


9.5 


11 


140 


9.57 


3.25 


2.13 


6.37 


21.32 


.36 


20.96 


9.00 


29.96 


3.09 


9.7 


12 


50 


13.35 


2.56 


2.08 


4.36 


22.35 


.34 


22.01 


7.50 


29.51 


3.14 


9.4 


13 


180 


9.94 


2.63 


1.78 


6.20 


20.55 


.50 


20.05 


7.50 


27.55 


3.94 


7.0 



Saline County, Mo. 



1 


90 


$8.35 


$3. 01 


$3.39 


$5.95 


$20. 70 


$14. 89 


$5.81 


$18. 00 


$23.81 


$1.21 


19.7 


2 


40 


9.58 


3.67 


3.14 


6. 71 


23.10 


2.79 


20.31 


13. 50 


33.81 


1.50 


22.5 


3 


100 


15.87 


3.86 


3.67 


7.54 


30.94 


1.00 


29.94 


10.80 


40.74 


1.70 


24.0 


4 


40 


7.80 


3.12 


5.04 


3.90 


19.86 


1.07 


is. 79 


15. 00 


33.79 


1.88 


18.0 


5 


100 


13.43 


3.48 


2.73 


4.29 


23.93 


1.45 


22. 48 


12.00 


34.48 


1.92 


18.0 


6 


85 


16.50 


3.49 


3.49 


5.22 


28. 70 




28.76 


12.00 


40.70 


1.94 


21.0 


7 


70 


5.53 


3.41 


5.84 


7. 09 


21.87 


1.42 


20. 45 


15.00 


35.45 


1.97 


18.0 


8 


65 


17.84 


4.31 


6.54 


6.48 


35. 17 


1.06 


34. 11 


15.00 


49.11 


2.16 


22.8 


9 


40 


13.18 


3.14 


2.48 


7.44. 


26. 24 




26.24 


9.00 


35.24 


2.31 


15.3 



58 



BULLETIN 943, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table XXXVII. — Individual costs per acre on owned land, spring and winter wheat, 1919 

{327 farms) — Continued . 



Rec- 
ord 
num- 
ber. 



Acres 
har- 
vest- 
ed. 






Factors of cost, per acre . 






Total net cost, 
with rent. 


Labor. 


Mate- 
rial. 


Thrash- 
ing. 


Miscel- 
laneous. 


Total 
gross 
cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 


Credit. 


Total 
net 

cost, 

with- 
out 

rent. 


Rent 
(inter- 
est on 
invest- 
ment). 


Per 
acre. 


Per 
bushel. 



WINTER WHEAT— Continued. 
Saline County, Mo.— Continued. 



10 


.$200 


$8.5S 


$2.57 


$1.92 


$3.66 


$16. 73 


$S.43 


$8.30 


$16. 50 


$24. SO 


$2.32 


10.7 


11 


70 


11.03 


3.16 


2.14 


5.49 


21.82 




21.82 


15.00 


33.82 


2.34 


15.7 


12 


65 


5.98 


3.32 


3.28 


5.15 


17.73 


.97 


16.76 


15.00 


31. 76 


2. £0 


11.3 


13 


15 


13.73 


3.54 


3.82 


4.30 


25.39 


.32 


25.07 


9.00 


34.07 


2.84 


12.0 


14 


75 


14.02 


3.29 


1.96 


4.72 


23.99 


.83 


23.16 


15.00 


;;s. 16 


2.86 


13.3 


15 


175 


10.90 


3.76 


4.29 


4.06 


23.01 


.14 


22.87 


18.00 


40.87 


2. 02 


14.0 


16 


37 


8.29 


3.46 


1.97 


6.59 


20.31 


4.05 


16.26 


15. 00 


31.25 


3.04 


10.3 


17 


30 


13. 96 


3.19 


2.18 


9.64 


2S.97 


4.20 


24.77 


12. 00 


36.77 


3.11 


11.8 


18 


65 


20.32 


3.75 


1.90 


5.22 


31.19 


.46 


30.73 


12.00 


42.73 


3.29 


13.0 


19 


40 


14.99 


3.54 


1.78 


19.83 


40.14 


1.87 


38.27 


12.0) 


50. 27 


3.35 


15.0 


20 


20 


14.63 


3.26 


1.80 


4.10 


23. 7J 


.30 


23. 49 


13. 50 


33. 99 


4.25 


8.7 


21 


40 


15.13 


3.44 


1.50 


9.81 


29.88 


1.06 


25.82 


12.00 


37.82 


5.20 


7.3 



Jaspeb County, Mo. 



1 


52 


$i3. 42 


$5. 33 


$1.67 


$4.49 


$24. 91 


$0.78 


$24. 13 


$8. 10 


$32. 23 


$1.29 


25.0 


2 


145 


10. 50 


6.18 


1.34 


6.69 


24.71 


4.03 


20.68 


7.80 


28.48 


1.41 


20.2 


3 


34 


14.26 


5.00 


1.52 


4.41 


25.19 


.82 


24.37 


6.00 


30.37 


1.43 


21.2 


4 


68 


12.21 


4.65 


1.53 


4.93 


23.32 


.81 


22.51 


6.00 


28.51 


1.52 


18.8 


5 


130 


12.93 


3.96 


1.64 


6.42 


24.95 


.25 


24.70 


8.40 


33.10 


1.54 


21.5 


6 


85 


9.93 


4.65 


1.78 


5.86 


22.22 


.52 


21.70 


9.00 


30.70 


1.54 


20.0 


7 


17 


18.29 


7.65 


2.03 


7.11 


35.08 


5. 29 


29.79 


9.00 


38.79 


1.55 


25.0 


8 


55 


15.15 


4.94 


1.54 


4.71 


25. 34 


3. oo 


23. 34 


9.00 


32.34 


1.62 


20.0 


9 


140 


13.74 


5.41 


1.55 


4.89 


25. 59 


.51 


25.08 


9.00 


34. 08 


1.66 


20.5 


10 


185 


13.97 


5.37 


1.43 


5.45 


26. 22 


2.59 


23.63 


8.40 


32.03 


1.70 


18.9 


11 


20 


14.84 


5.39 


1.41 


4.65 


26. 29 


.65 


25. 64 


6.00 


31.64 


1.71 


18.5 


12 


75 


15.54 


6.67 


1.72 


5.90 


29. 83 


.64 


29.19 


9.00 


38.19 


1.75 


21.8 


13 


70 


12.67 


5.75 


1.32 


5.40 


25. 14 


.43 


24.71 


7.50 


32. 21 


1.79 


18.0 


14 


85 


13.55 


5.28 


1.29 


4.32 


24. 14 


1. 00 


23.44 


7.50 


30.94 


1.85 


16.7 


15 


30 


15.84 


8.17 


1.20 


4.51 


29. 72 


5. 33 


24.39 


6.00 


30. 39 


2.07 


14.7 


16 


39 


23.90 


4.62 


1.76 


6.73 


37.01 




37.01 


9.00 


46.01 


2.22 


20.8 


17 


39 


14.82 


4.33 


1.27 


8.75 


29.17 


3. 08 


26.09 


7.50 


33.59 


2.24 


15.0 



St. Charles County, Mo. 



1 


15 


. $9. 48 


$3.86 


$2.86 


$6.76 


£22. 96 


SO. 33 


S22. 63 


$12.0 J 


$34. 63 


$1. 15 


30.0 


2 


90 


10.18 


3.84 


2.21 


5.28 


21.51 


.56 


20.95 


7.50 


28.45 


1.19 


24.0 


3 


144 


12.34 


4.21 


2.21 


4.01 


22.77 


.14 


22.63 


8.40 


31.03 


1.35 


22.9 


4 


67 


7.57 


3.82 


2.14 


7.24 


20.77 


.37 


20. 40 


U.OO 


32.40 


1.39 


23.3 


5 


35 


12.73 


2.94 


2.01 


4.16 


21.84 


.32 


21.52 


9.00 


30. 52 


1.40 


21.8 


6 


33 


15.08 


3.61 


2.55 


4.82 


26.06 


.42 


25.64 


13.50 


39.14 


1.44 


27.3 


7 


52 


11.80 


3.70 


1.81 


4.17 


21. 4S 


.48 


21.00 


8.40 


29.40 


1.48 


19.9 


8 


89 


10.93 


2.99 


1.91 


5.04 


20.87 


.44 


20.43 


12.00 


32.43 


1.49 


21.7 


9 


60 


13.84 


3.25 


2.03 


5.33 


24.45 


.83 


23. 62 


9.00 


32.62 


1.51 


21.7 


10 


105 


10.04 


3.40 


1.76 


3.93 


19. 13 


1.19 


17.94 


10.50 


28.44 


1.57 


18.2 


11 


36 


15.82 


3.17 


1.93 


6.34 


27.26 


1.22 


26.04 


8.40 


34.44 


1.60 


21.6 


12 


90 


11.89 


3.14 


1.86 


3.57 


20. 46 




20.46 


12.00 


32.46 


1.62 


20.0 


13 


20 


12.48 


3.55 


1.83 


4.41 


22.27 


.46 


21.81 


10. 50 


32.31 


1.62 


20.0 


14 


80 


9.91 


4.49 


1.77 


5.04 


21.21 




21.21 


9.00 


30.21 


1.63 


18.5 


15 


51 


13.35 


3.53 


1.73 


5.87 


24.48 


. 58 


23. 90 


7.50 


31.40 


1.65 


19.1 


16 


23 


11.36 


3.51 


1.73 


4.22 


20.82 


.51 


20.31 


10.50 


30.81 


1.69 


18.3 


17 


70 


11.73 


3.48 


2.10 


7.52 


24.83 


.29 


21. 54 


12. 00 


36.54 


1.73 


21.1 


18 


52 


15.93 


4.09 


1.84 


5.42 


27. 28 




27.28 


9.00 


36.28 


1.80 


20.2 


19 


70 


9.45 


3.59 


1.69 


5.21 


19.94 


.43 


19.51 


12. 00 


31.51 


1.82 


17.3 


20 


65 


18.58 


3.87 


1.92 


6.14 


30. 51 


1.00 


29.51 


7.50 


37.01 


1.85 


20.0 


21 


60 


12.69 


3.89 


2.29 


7.73 


26.60 


.50 


26. 10 


18. 00 


44.10 


1.86 


23.8 


22 


110 


13.43 


3.92 


1.89 


4.96 


24. 2d 


.23 


23. 97 


13.50 


37.47 


1.87 


20.0 


23 


41 


17.19 


3.84 


1.99 


5.96 


28.98 


.41 


28.57 


9.00 


37.57 


1.88 


20.0 


24 


40 


18.63 


6.69 


2.00 


6.97 


31.29 


.75 


33. 54 


7.5(1 


41. 04 


1.99 


20.6 


25 


40 


14.55 


4.31 


1.98 


7.44 


28. 28 


.30 


27. 98 


12.00 


39.98 


2.00 


20.0 


26 


38 


13.12 


5.22 


1.88 


5.41 


25. 63 


.57 


25.06 


15.00 


40.06 


2.00 


20.0 


27 


77 


14.60 


5.01 


1.91 


5.96 


27.48 


.52 


26.96 


15. 00 


41.96 


2.02 


20.8 


28 


55 


17.67 


4.71 


1.77 


6. HI 


30.16 


.64 


29. 52 


9.00 


38.52 


2.06 


18.7 


29 


80 


12.36 


3.64 


1.27 


5.16 


22.43 


.'38 


22.05 


7.50 


29.55 


2.15 


13.8 


30 


42 


14.87 


3.32 


1.42 


5. 19 


24.80 


.65 


24.15 


9.00 


33.15 


2.32 


14.3 


31 


180 


12.01 


1. 19 


1.29 


5.41 


22.90 


.27 


22.63 


9.00 


31.63 


2.48 


12.8 



COST OF PRODUCING WHEAT. 



59 



Table XXX. VII .—Individual costs per acre on owned land, spring and winter wheat, 
1919 (827 farms)-^ Continued. 



Acres 
har- 
vest- 
ed. 






Factors of cost, per acre. 






Total net cost , 
with rent. 


Labor. 


Mate- 
rial. 


Thrash- 
ing. 


Miscel- 
laneous. 


Total 
gross 
cost, 
with- 
out 
rent. 


Credit. 


Total 
net 
cost 

with- 
out 

rent. 


Rent 
(inter- 
est on 

invest- 
ment). 


Per 

acre. 


Per 
bushel. 



Yield 
per 
acre. 



WINTER WHEAT-Continued. 
Phelps County, Nebr. 



1 


20 


$6.48 


$2.50 


$0.82 


£2.82 


$12.62 


$1. 00 


SI 1.62 


$6.00 


$17. 62 


$1.58 


8.0 


2 


20 


7.33 


3. OS 


1.38 


3.77 


15.56 




15.56 


6.03 


21.56 


1.66 


13.0 


3 


100 


8.20 


3.86 


1.63 


4.17 


17.86 


.1 1 


17.72 


7.50 


25.22 


1.68 


15.0 


4 


235 


9.49 


2.87 


1.53 


4.97 


18 si; 




18. 86 


6.90 


25.76 


1.86 


13.8 


5 


110 


9.56 


2.82 


1.53 


4.61 


18. 52 




18.52 


7.50 


26.02 


1.86 


14.0 


6 


43 


12.30 


2.84 


1.66 


4.34 


21. 14 




21 14 


7.5D 


28.64 


1.91 


15.0 


7 


80 


9.19 


3.37 


1.20 


3.23 


16. 99 


2.50 


14.49 


6.60 


21.09 


1.92 


11.0 


8 


430 


9.70 


2.67 


1.28 


3.44 


17. 09 




17. i>9 


7.50 


24.59 


2.05 


12.0 


9 


100 


8.73 


2.65 


1.05 


4.88 


17. 31 


1.10 


16.21 


7. 50 


23. 71 


2.43 


9.8 


10 


140 


9.40 


2.60 


1.02 


3.91 


16.93 


.48 


16.45 


7.50 


23.95 


2.48 


9.6 


11 


120 


9.74 


3.08 


1.06 


3.90 


17.7s 


.42 


17.36 


8.40 


25. 76 


2.69 


9.6 


12 


90 


11.22 


2.42 


.94 


3. 56 


18.14 




is. 14 


6.00 


24.14 


2.76 


8.8 


13 


105 


9.09 


2. 38 


.75 


3. 67 


15. S9 




15.89 


7.50 


23. 39 


3.11 


7.5 


11 


55 


6.38 


2.53 


.43 


5.34 


14.68 


.42 


14.26 


9.00 


23. 26 


6.33 


3.7 



Saline County, Nebr. 



1 


50 


$10.59 


$4. 36 


$1.83 


$5. 95 


$22. 73 


$0.20 


$22. 53 


19.00 


$31.53 


$1. 43 


22.0 


2 


55 


15.15 


4.72 


2.86 


4.74 


27.47 


.45 


27.02 


9.00 


36.02 


1.61 


22.4 


3 


30 


16.44 


5.19 


2.28 


6.47 


30. 38 


2.50 


27. 88 


12.00 


.71. B8 


1.69 


23.6 


4 


48 


13.30 


3.96 


2.19 


5.43 


24. 88 


.31 


24.57 


12 Oil 


36. 57 


1.76 


20.8 


5 


65 


10.15 


4.55 


1.72 


6.39 


22.81 




22. SI 


12.00 


3 1, si 


1.93 


18.0 


6 


50 


13.33 


3.64 


1.99 


6. 97 


25.93 


.50 


25. 43 


15. 00 


10. 43 


1.93 


21.0 


7 


85 


12.97 


3.38 


2.39 


5.05 


23. 79 




23.79 


15.00 


38. 79 


1.94 


20.0 


8 


45 


13. 42 


3.58 


1.61 


5. '.'.) 


24. 10 


.22 


23.88 


9.00 


32.88 


2.05 


16.0 


9 


40 


11.62 


3.58 


1.76 


3.97 


20. 93 




20. 93 


Hi. 50 


37.43 


2.08 


18.0 


10 


35 


19.16 


4.20 


1.94 


6. (13 


31.33 




31. 33 


10. 50 


41. S3 


2.09 


20.0 


11 


50 


14.39 


3.90 


1.80 


7.31 


27.40 




27.40 


12.00 


39. 40 


2.10 


18.8 


12 


55 


16.62 


7.03 


2.02 


8. 11 


34.11 


.82 


33. 29 


15. Oil 


is. 29 


2.10 


23.0 


13 


40 


13. 87 


3.38 


1.85 


5.62 


24.72 


.38 


24.34 


12.00 


36.34 


2.14 


17.0 


14 


90 


18.51 


5.52 


2.02 


5.04 


31.09 


.33 


30. 76 


12.dll 


42. 76 


2.16 


19.8 


15 


16 


17.24 


4.07 


1.80 


1.66 


27.77 




27.77 


16.50 


44.27 


2.21 


20.0 


16 


30 


19.11 


5.25 


1.80 


6.33 


32.49 


.33 


32. 16 


12.00 


44.16 


.2.21 


20.0 


17 


60 


13. 30 


4.22 


1.68 


5.86 


25.06 


.40 


24.66 


12. 00 


36. 66 


2.29 


16.0 


18 


15 


14.69 


3.97 


1.75 


7.29 


27.70 


.50 


27.20 


12.00 


39.20 


2.31 


17.0 


19 


22 


13.43 


4.31 


1.28 


5.46 


24. 48 


.91 


23. 57 


12.00 


35.57 


2.37 


15.0 


20 


122 


11. 15 


3.90 


2.05 


0.42 


23.52 




23.52 


15. 00 


38. 52 


2.49 


15.4 


21 


65 


17.58 


3.85 


1.48 


5. S7 


28.78 


1.15 


27. 63 


15.00 


42.63 


2.51 


17.0 


22 


90 


15.73 


4.63 


1.56 


6.02 


27.94 


.33 


27.61 


15. 00 


42.61 


2.61 


16.3 


23 


74 


21.50 


4.31 


1.94 


9.87 


37.62 




37.62 


12. 00 


49. 62 


2.64 


18.8 


24 


20 


17.27 


3.68 


1.85 


5.85 


28.65 


.50 


28. 15 


12.00 


40.15 


2.77 


14.5 


25 


12 


17.09 


3.38 


1.28 


6.32 


28.07 


.42 


27.65 


12. 00 


39.65 


2.83 


14.0 


26 


50 


15.55 


5.50 


1.08 


5.01 


27.14 




27. 14 


9.00 


36. 14 


3.61 


10.0 


27 


30 


14.65 


4.34 


1.24 


5.19 


25.42 


.20 


25.22 


14.40 


39.62 


3.96 


10.0 



Keith County, Nebr. 



450 


$8.09 


130 


13. 02 


65 


11.94 


150 


8.24 


60 


12.64 


60 


7.53 


100 


7.32 


65 


9.29 


100 


11.69 


40 


13.86 


65 


12.06 


200 


5.44 


20 


15.07 



$1.56 
2.14 
2.23 
2.77 
2.20 
2.20 
2.00 
2.98 
2.83 
2.50 
2.49 
2.25 
2. 50 



$2.07 
2.94 
2.61 
2.49 
1.96 
1.44 
1.22 
2.05 
1.69 
1.60 
1.41 
1.11 
1.09 



$4.04 
5.18 
8.33 
9.65 
4.86 
5.41 
2.74 
6.45 
4.88 
3.40 
5.31 
4.84 
4.02 



$15.76 
23. 28 
25.11 
23.15 
21.66 
16.58 
13. 28 
20.77 
21.09 
21.36 
21.27 
13.64 
22.68 



25 



$15 32 
22.93 
24.88 
23. 09 
21.32 
16.48 
13.28 
20.77 
20.84 
21.36 
20.96 
13.64 
22. 43 



S3. 90 
5.40 
4.80 

8.40 
4.50 
6.(1(1 
6.00 
7.50 
6.00 
6.00 
7.50 
6.00 
2.40 



$19.22 

25. 33 
29.68 
31.49 
25 S2 
22. 4S 
19.28 
28.27 

26. 84 
27.36 
28.46 
19.64 
24.83 



$0.96 
1.01 
1.19 
1.35 
1.37 
1.50 
1.57 
1.60 
1.68 
1.82 
1.99 
2.00 
3.08 



20.0 
28.0 
25.0 
23.3 
18.8 
15.0 
12.2 
17.3 
16.0 
15.0 
14.3 
9.8 
8.0 



ADDITIONAL COPIES 

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM 

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

AT 

IS CENTS PER COPY 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



000 935 606 ft 



H< 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



000 935 606 ft 



